PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill

Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [31st October] as relates to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill which was originally introduced in this House, in the previous session, on 25th January 2005 should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A ( Suspension of bills).— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
	 Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

London Local Authorities Bill [ lords]

Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [31st October] as relates to the London Local Authorities Bill [ Lords], be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

Transport for London Bill [ lords]

Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [31st October] as relates to the Transport for London Bill [ Lords] be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

Whitehaven Harbour Bill [ lords]

Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [31st October] as relates to the Whitehaven Harbour Bill [ Lords] be now considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]
	 Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sharing Collections

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What steps her Department is taking to encourage museums and the British Library to share their collections and take them into schools.

David Lammy: Thanks to the Government's support for the renaissance in the regions programme, museums across England are working with schools in greater numbers than ever before. I am pleased that, as a result of our investment, every school in Durham will benefit from educational access to museum collections.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in pressing the British Library to move the Lindisfarne gospels on a permanent or temporary basis to the north-east, so that local people, including schoolchildren and visitors, can better appreciate their significance to the cultural heritage of the region?

David Lammy: There is no doubt that the Lindisfarne gospels are one of our greatest national treasures, and are certainly a great source of pride in the north-east of this country. My hon. Friend will know that it is important that Ministers at the Dispatch Box always maintain the independence of the British Library and the decisions that its board feels that it needs to make about the gospels. However, I am pleased that I will meet her this week to discuss these matters in greater detail.

Nigel Evans: As I am sure the Minister knows, the chief executive of the British Library appeared before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport last week. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the British Library will not face cuts under the comprehensive spending review? He knows that we have been told that if that happens, it will have to cut its opening hours and some of the other things that it does, never mind be able to take its collections and share them with schoolchildren throughout the country.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the British Library has done much in the last few years to ensure that it takes its collections into schools across the country. It has completed a successful modernisation programme and many of its collections are online. It is also in conversations with organisations, such as Microsoft, to ensure that its collections, many of which only it has, remain at the forefront, so it has an obligation not only to this country but to the rest of the world. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot undertake to say what the results of the spending review will be. The review is in the mind of one person—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I do not think that he has yet completed his deliberations on those matters.

Linda Gilroy: In his speech in Oxford last week, the Prime Minister encouraged us all to become more scientific. He said that we must become a more scientifically literate society and make the subject popular again. Does my hon. Friend agree that science centres and science museums have an important role to play in that respect? In particular, I would mention the national marine aquarium in the city of Plymouth. Will he consider the balance of funding and how it might be made more favourable, to enable such centres and museums to share their expertise and help us all to become scientifically literate?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt that a key part in making young people not just want to take an interest in science but become scientists themselves is the work that our museums are doing. Both the national marine aquarium and the Science museum are doing a huge amount to make science accessible to young people and in getting through the doors to work with schools and with parents. As she would expect, we are looking at all these issues closely as we enter the comprehensive spending review.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister congratulate the director of the Macclesfield silk museum, which was recently visited by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, on involving junior schools and their curricula with the textile history and tradition of Macclesfield? Will he go a little further and assure me and the House that small museums will not be neglected in respect of funding? They are critical to the history and tradition of our country and, in particular, of Macclesfield and the textile industry in the north-west.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right to attach his museum to the social cohesion that is no doubt important in Macclesfield. The museum in Macclesfield has benefited from the renaissance in the regions programme, which has £147 million for our regional museums up to 2008. That money was not there before. Our regional and local museums were in a dire state prior to that funding. In the House last week, I was pleased that so many people, and so many Members, were able to attend an event at which we celebrated the success of that programme, which Macclesfield has benefited from.

National Lottery

Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet representatives of the Big Lottery Fund to discuss grants to village and community halls in rural areas.

Richard Caborn: I am sure that the House would like to congratulate Alex Ferguson on 20 years at Manchester United as one of the nation's most successful managers—and he is a really nice guy, as well.
	I have no immediate plans to meet representatives to discuss the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I know that the fund has launched a well-received £50 million community buildings programme to benefit projects across England. In addition, the national lottery has already awarded £258 million to villages and community halls.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that although a number of village and community halls in my constituency have received lottery grants, for which they are grateful, many others have been refused grants, much to their dismay and disappointment? He mentioned Sir Alex Ferguson. I was not going to mention him today, but is the Minister aware that Manchester United, one of the richest football clubs in the world, recently received £30,000 from the lottery to run yoga classes and fitness sessions for its staff? What is going on? Why are Ministers and the lottery so against rural areas?

Richard Caborn: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his supplementary question. To answer the first part of it, there are a number of applications from village halls which, because the right information has not been given, have not been granted. It is right that there is that prudence with public funds. The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter a number of times on behalf of his constituency—particularly in relation to Terrington St. John, which he also raised last time. That will be looked into, and has been looked into.
	As far as Manchester United and many other employers are concerned, we are trying to get corporate UK to be active—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with this—in making our nation much fitter. We are spending billions of pounds in relation to obesity. Through Sport England and the north-west regional sports board, that initiative is being tried. I congratulate people on that.

Madeleine Moon: Kenfig Pyle Community Youth, which serves three village communities in my constituency, was recently awarded £300,000 to continue its work offering alternatives to drink, drugs and antisocial behaviour. That work is appreciated by the police and there is great acknowledgement of the benefits that that lottery money will bring to the community. May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her support in meeting the group from Kenfig Pyle Community Youth, and may I urge the importance of providing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question is fine.

Richard Caborn: I am pleased that my hon. Friend made those comments. They clearly show how the Big Lottery Fund can add real value to a number of funding streams. When the legislation was going through Parliament a few weeks ago, the wide consultation throughout the whole of the United Kingdom showed that there was a desire to make sure that the lottery money was used positively to add real value to many funding streams.

Graham Stuart: Rural communities have been disadvantaged by post office closures, they have been infuriated by community hospital cutbacks, they have, in many cases, been driven into poverty by the single farm payment fiasco, and they have been infuriated by the hunting ban. Will the Minister accept that rural communities feel abandoned and betrayed, and will he play a personal role in ensuring that our village halls at least get an investment in their social capital, which he otherwise preaches so much about?

Richard Caborn: I understand the points to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have already said that the lottery has invested £258 million in village halls. When we were in the process of winding up the Millennium Commission money, we noticed that considerably more village halls had been supported in Scotland and Wales than in England, because those in England had not made applications. The hon. Gentleman can read the minutes of the Millennium Commission: Lord Heseltine and I were concerned that many of the village halls in England had not made submissions, which was regrettable.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that a load of village hall applications are in the pipeline. When he meets representatives of the Big Lottery Fund, will he stress the importance of supporting the over-60s at Croston village hall, and others in Chorley? Will he point out the benefits that supporting them would bring to Chorley?

Richard Caborn: I make it absolutely clear that all the lottery funds, including the Big Lottery Fund, operate at arm's length from the Government. My strong advice to my hon. Friend is that he help his constituents to ensure that they make full applications. I have no doubt that the various lottery distributing authorities will give such applications a very good hearing.

Hugo Swire: Of course, the correct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is that there is less money for village and community halls as a result of the Government having absorbed—shall we say?—£3.2 billion of national lottery money since 1997. It is only thanks to pressure from the  Daily Mail and the Conservative party that money has now been found for the armed forces memorial. Will the Minister agree to re-examine the criteria to ensure that applications such as that made by the armed forces memorial fund, which has overwhelming public support, are able to attract lottery funding without needing to obtain the support of a national newspaper?

Richard Caborn: First, may I say that there is no doubt that the memorial is an excellent idea? There has been considerable investment by the lottery: there has been £45 million to commemorate and preserve the experiences of those who lived and fought through the second world war; 39,000 veterans of world war two—and their widows and carers—were funded for the journey back to the battlefields; and 11 million people participated in the veterans unite programme. By any standard, I do not think that anyone could say that there has not been investment, and rightly so.
	When the armed forces memorial trust made this application, it was told that unfortunately, anything below £10 million would not meet the criteria. The amount came in at £4.4 million. On Friday last week, my chief executive from the Millennium Commission phoned me to find out whether it could assist to ensure that the application was met. After I had consulted the trustees and those of the Big Lottery Fund, at 4 pm on Friday, Lord Heseltine and I cleared the £2 million that was subsequently released. The outcome was not pushed by the  Daily Mail or any other body. The application went through in the normal way. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are politicians—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Minister that perhaps he could send a letter to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), with a copy placed in the Library for the benefit of the House.

Hugo Swire: Cut off in his prime, Mr. Speaker.
	Will the Minister confirm or deny reports that Treasury officials intend to make another hit on the national lottery to pay for Olympic overspend, which would mean that even less money would go to community groups and the original good causes?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a joint agreement among the three funding partners—and that is what we are sticking to. If he could start thinking a little for himself, instead of being informed by the journalists of the  Daily Mail, some original thinking might actually come from the Conservative party, rather than their pathetic attempts at the moment.

Olympic Games

Sally Keeble: What steps her Department is taking to encourage greater participation in sport by children and young people in the run-up to the 2012 Olympic games.

Tessa Jowell: The Government are doing a lot to promote participation by young people. Some 80 per cent. of both primary and secondary school children are doing at least two hours of sport and physical activity a week, which is up from 25 per cent. in 2003. By 2010, every child who wants to, will be able to do four hours a week. We have reintroduced competitive sport in state schools, and there is record investment in elite athlete development. I place on record my particular thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport for his work on establishing the UK school games. We are also seeing a net increase in modern sport facilities. London's promise at Singapore was to inspire a generation of young people through sport, and we are proud of the progress that we have made. I am especially proud to commend the efforts of my hon. Friend. She and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) have brought together community organisations in Northampton to ensure that Northampton and its young people get the maximum benefit from the possibilities of the Olympics.

Sally Keeble: When will the information be published on the regional games, which will be extremely important in the run-up to 2012? Will that focus not only on elite sport but on wider participation, so that all the 10-year-olds who are starry-eyed about the Olympics get a chance to take part? May I make an early bid to have one of the regional finals in my county?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for Northampton's hosting of the UK school games. Next year's games are to be held in Coventry. I think that 11 cities around the country are bidding—including Bath, I must add, before the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rises to make that point—and the decisions on the remaining cities will be made next year.

John Whittingdale: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief executive of the Central Council of Physical Recreation told the Select Committee two weeks ago that the hiving off of an additional £340 million from the main lottery to the Olympics will leave Sport England without the resources necessary to generate the legacy of participation which was a main plank in our successful Olympic bid? Will she put in place the national strategy and the necessary funding to ensure that we achieve a successful legacy right across the country, which is what we all want?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, of course we are determined to do all we can to ensure that the whole country has the opportunity to benefit from the Olympic legacy. The hon. Gentleman refers to evidence, and it is correct to say that £340 million from existing sports lottery distributors is part of the lottery contribution to funding the 2012 games, but it is misleading to portray that money as being taken away from wider work to promote participation and grass-roots sport. Some of the money from Sport England, for example, is being used to fund the new aquatic centre, which will be designed specifically to promote community use as a legacy; the velodrome is being treated similarly. Other spending by lottery distributors will go to Olympic-related projects, not only in London and the east end, but around the country. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are determined to make sure that the whole country benefits from the Olympics, and the comment to which he refers is unnecessary scaremongering.

Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend put into the public domain the criteria on which cities can bid for the UK youth games and the regional games? Will she consider, as part of the Olympic legacy, an Olympic sports day for the nation?

Tessa Jowell: The details have been widely circulated to local authorities, but so that there will be no doubt, I shall be happy to place a copy in the Library.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State knows that the national lottery provides financial support for many of our grass-roots sports initiatives that encourage young people to participate in sporting activity. Will she therefore rule out any further raids on the national lottery to pay for overspends on the London Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: No, I will not—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am not in a position to do that. As the hon. Gentleman—indeed, the whole House—knows, provision has been made in the joint venture agreement so that in the event of further funds being needed to support the Olympic games, there is a formula, unspecified in its detail, to enable sharing between London and the lottery. It would be irresponsible of me to give the House the undertaking that he asks me to give.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will, I know, be as proud as we are in Crewe that we have two disabled children going to Beijing as part of the Paralympics team. Will she do everything she can to encourage disabled children and children with special needs to prepare for the Olympics in 2012, and to make them as proud as we are of our existing team?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and I know how strongly she has argued for that. I can assure her that the elite programmes being established for our young athletes to take part in Beijing and in 2012 and beyond make no distinction between able-bodied athletes and young disabled people.

Hugh Robertson: But is not my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee, right: is not Sport England, the Government quango responsible for these matters, widely regarded as a failing institution in need of urgent reform? The last eight chief executives of sport governing bodies whom I have met have all complained about it. Is it not the case that the Big Lottery Fund has no money earmarked in the 2006-2009 period for mass participation payments, and that the Government have cut the amount of lottery funding going into sport from £397 million in 1998 to a paltry £260 million last year—a cut of one third? When will they make proposals to deal with mass participation sport in this country?

Tessa Jowell: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would come to the Dispatch Box to congratulate schools throughout the country on exceeding the target for getting young people to do two hours a week of high-quality sport and PE, and that he would congratulate the local authorities and community clubs that have made such heroic efforts to improve their facilities. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] To deal specifically with the hon. Gentleman's point, I am proud to be part of a Government who, since the launch of the school sport programme in 2000, have seen investment of £3 billion in sport. I am proud to be part of a Government who have overhauled Sport England and given it a clear focus on two things: first, boosting participation, ensuring that another 400,000 people a year are getting active and taking part in sport; and secondly, overhauling the outdated facilities that are the only resort for too many people who want to exercise. We have a remarkable story of success—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Next question.

Hugh Robertson: But what the Secretary of State does not answer is why the amount of money going into sport through the national lottery, according to a parliamentary written answer that she gave me, has been cut from £397 million to £260 million. Key components of the Olympic bid are the mass participation benefits that will arise from the post-games use of the stadiums. The Secretary of State gave me a personal assurance that VAT would not be levied on their construction. The organisers were clearly given the same commitment, because they made no allowance for VAT in the budget. Will she confirm to the House that a possible VAT bill of a quarter of a billion pounds will not be levied by the Treasury on the 2012 Olympics?

Tessa Jowell: This is quite disgraceful. I had a conversation with the hon. Gentleman in which, in complete frankness, I told him what the position was at the time— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tessa Jowell: Perhaps the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) would like to listen to the answer. Let me deal first with the VAT point. The candidature file did not include VAT on construction of venues for 2012 because at that time the position of the unspecified delivery body, which had not been legislated for or given effect, could not be anticipated. A cross-Government group signed off London's plans and agreed that it was the right approach not to anticipate at that point the VAT status. The issue was not raised by PricewaterhouseCooper, who advised us on the costs, nor were issues in relation to VAT at that point identified by the Treasury or by departmental accounting officers—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] However, what I did do when we won the bid was to initiate an immediate review of the costs and funding needs of the games. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the costs of the Olympic park have been significantly reduced. The funding needs of the games—including VAT, the need for security and so forth—are a matter of continuing discussion within Government. That is the position, delivered to the hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House rather than in corridor conversations.

Jim Dobbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a new deal for communities in my constituency called "New Heart for Heywood", which is part-funding a new sports village complex? I know that she has both eyes on the Olympic games at present, but could she move one of them towards Heywood to keep up to date with progress on that development, whereby my local young people may well play a part in the Olympic games in 2012?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, our participation ambitions for young people will be met only if they are playing sport in modern facilities. Every Member of the House should be an advocate of that in their communities, as is my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate.

Don Foster: The issue of VAT on the Olympic buildings is of crucial importance to everyone in this House. If the Secretary of State is unable at present to confirm whether VAT will be paid on the buildings, given that £1 billion is at stake, will she at least agree to come before this House as a matter of urgency and make a statement on that issue?

Tessa Jowell: I am a subject of this House on any matter to do with the funding of the Olympic games, or any other aspect of them. This is a large and complex project and a major issue that we are working through. The International Olympic Committee has expressed its utter satisfaction with the progress being made in the planning of the games. I will answer to the House at any point on the issues as they arise.

Paul Farrelly: Schools in my constituency are generally fortunate in having their own sports fields, but some schools in inner-London boroughs such as Hackney do not have a single blade of grass. Will my right hon. Friend consider working with the Department for Education and Skills, local education authorities and the Olympic partners to install playable surfaces in inner-city schools so that their pupils have a dowry from the Olympics right away?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. However, I would point to the London borough of Lambeth, which, although it does not have acres of open space, has a participation rate by young people running at about 90 per cent. Yes, the facilities have to be there, but so too does the determination to get young people involved.

Premium Line Competitions

Norman Baker: What discussions she has had with (a) Ofcom and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry on premium line competitions run on ITV.

Shaun Woodward: Regulation of premium line television competitions rests with independent regulators Ofcom and the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that last month ICSTIS announced a review of the quiz television sector, including premium line competitions.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not clear that many of the so-called competitions on programmes such as "The Mint" are nothing other than crude money-raising scams designed to replace lost advertisement revenue? Is he aware that it is possible to make up to 150 calls a day at 75p each, so that someone could spend more than £100 making futile calls to such programmes yet not even get on to them? Is it not time that ITV should be forced to publicise how much profit it is making from these lines, and will the Minister urge it to do so in time for the investigation by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee?

Shaun Woodward: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the review that was announced by ICSTIS last month will look into a number of issues, including the transparency of the service, on-screen statements, concerns about excessive use, prize fulfilment and free web entry offers. It is important that the review be undertaken properly. Of course we are aware that some people have made representations about these particular programmes. Equally, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to realise that ITV has stated categorically that it meets all regulations, standards and codes of practice. We agree, however, that we need to ensure that these services are trusted. For that reason, it is important that the review should take place. I am sorry that it cannot be hurried to produce its findings in time for inclusion in the Select Committee report, but it is important that it do its work properly.

David Anderson: While my hon. Friend is having his discussions with Ofcom about the continuing dumbing down of ITV, will he take the opportunity to raise the real worry that digital switchover could well result in the end of regional news programmes on ITV?

Shaun Woodward: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about these issues; indeed, he has already written to me about them. We shall come to this subject later on in today's questions.

George Young: Does the Minister agree that it should be made crystal clear to people before they ring in that they might be confronted by a premium rate tariff, and that all they might get at the end is a message saying, "Your call has not been selected for answer"? Is it not important that Ofcom should come down tough on some of these schemes for making money?

Shaun Woodward: We could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman about Ofcom coming down tough in such circumstances. As he knows, the code of practice provides for ICSTIS, when it finds that a breach has occurred, to issue a formal reprimand, to bar access to the services or to impose fines. The right hon. Gentleman should also know that those fines can be as high as £250,000.

Anne Begg: The Minister was talking about quiz programmes; indeed, he mentioned the word "programmes" more than once. However, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was referring to the single quiz questions that appear in advertising slots. It is those advertising slots that have given rise to the suspicion that they are a revenue stream for the ITV companies, in place of the advertising that would normally be in those slots. In these cases, however, it is the viewers who have to pay for them.

Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I believe that the ICSTIS review will look into these issues. It also has to be said, however, that despite the feelings of Members of Parliament, there are many people out there who enjoy playing these games. Whether my hon. Friend would wish to take part in them is another issue. However, we should be careful about telling people how to lead their lives.

Digital Switchover

Michael Fabricant: What targeted assistance package will be offered to viewers during digital switchover; and if she will make a statement.

Tessa Jowell: Given the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for digital television, he will be pleased to know that take-up in the Central region is among the highest in the country, with more than 80 per cent. of first sets now converted. The digital switchover help scheme will provide support with equipment and installation for those who are over 75, have a serious disability, or are partially sighted. Those who are eligible can also opt for a different platform, such as cable or satellite, and receive a contribution towards the cost of equipment.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer. She will know that this is to be funded out of the licence fee, which is borne by everyone who watches television. She will also be aware, however, that digital switchover will result in the analogue spectrum being sold off, and the Treasury taking all the money. What representations will she make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that some of that money is brought back in to the BBC so that the licence fee can be lowered?

Tessa Jowell: That is quite a rich mix that the hon. Gentleman has created. Yes, the Communications Act 2003 provides for the technology-neutral auction of the spectrum that will be released. Yes, discussions are going on at the moment about the licence fee. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is the established policy of the Government that, as switchover is a broadcasting cost, the cost will be borne by the broadcasters, and principally by the BBC.

Helen Goodman: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that appliances left on standby are producing 1 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year. That is enough to heat the homes in the whole of County Durham. Will she take the opportunity of digital switchover to consider introducing regulations to control the sale of wasteful standby televisions?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend makes exactly the sort of point required to demonstrate how climate change and environmental sustainability are, in part, a function of changing our own personal behaviour. That is a very good and practical example of the contribution that we can all make by being more vigilant about ensuring that we do not leave our sets on standby. I do not think that regulation is necessary.

Adrian Sanders: The Secretary of State has explained the mechanism for support in respect of digital switchover, but what people want to know—in my area, they will shortly be going through the process—is exactly when they get help and where it will be available.

Tessa Jowell: Help will be available through the telephone or in people's own homes. The Select Committee placed great emphasis on the importance of elderly, vulnerable and isolated people receiving a personal service and individual help with fixing the equipment or providing whatever advice they need. It is interesting to note that the trials showed that one of the most difficult choices that people, particularly elderly people, have to make is deciding on the right kind of remote control. A personal service is appropriate, because it will be a difficult and worrying transition for some people.

Creative Partnerships Programme

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment she has made of the impact of the creative partnerships programme.

David Lammy: Creative partnerships is a real success story. It has reached more than 300,000 young people and 1,600 schools. The evaluation of the programme, particularly the recent Ofsted report, has shown that it is having a real impact in the communities that it serves.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, was impressed by what Ofsted, BMRB, BOP and NFER said about children doing better and the creative industries and their workers succeeding as a result of the programme. What will happen next? It has done so well thus far, so can we have more of the same?

David Lammy: Creative partnerships have been such a success that we will, of course, have more of the same. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press the point. We are seeing more in respect of extended schools, more in our mainstream arts organisations being engaged in schools and more specialist schools choosing the arts option. That is where creative partnerships move from existing only in some schools to existing across the country. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the success of this particular scheme. Contact with schools from a range of artists is not just for a day or a week; we are talking about prolonged contact with some of our most deprived children. I thought that the most impressive report was the one from head teachers, 70 per cent. of whom said that creative partnerships had driven up attainment across the curriculum. That is why my Department supports the programme and is working closely on it with the Department for Education and Skills.

Tony Baldry: I may not be alone in understanding none of the acronyms to which the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) referred. I am sure that it is a brilliant programme, but I ask the Minister in all seriousness how it is promulgated, who may apply for it and how.

David Lammy: The programme has existed for some years now. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) used those acronyms because she is well informed about the programme. This is creative partnerships, serving schools in our poorest and most deprived areas and bringing young people—sometimes including those in pupil referral units—together with a range of artists. Poets, actors and visual artists, for example, are involved over a prolonged period to help drive up standards in schools. They seek to find new ways of bringing the arts and creativity into schools while having a positive impact on the rest of the curriculum. The programme is in its third phase, so I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is not aware of it.

Charities

Stephen Hepburn: If she will make a statement on Ofcom regulation of media campaigning by charity groups.

Shaun Woodward: Responsibility for the regulation of television and radio media campaigns is a matter for Ofcom.

Stephen Hepburn: Just as it is right for the BBC to show the problems that children face through its Children in Need appeal, surely it is right for organisations and campaigns such as Make Poverty History to show us through TV adverts the problems that young people face in Africa. Does the Under-Secretary agree that it is disgraceful that the TV advert was banned because it was too political? Will he get his officials to meet Ofcom to ensure that anything similar in future is considered more sensibly?

Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend raises an issue about which several hon. Members have been concerned. The Communications Act 2003 is critical because it prohibits radio and television advertisements being broadcast on behalf of political organisations that would
	"influence public opinion on a matter of controversy".
	The key issue is impartiality. Of course, all hon. Members support the work of Children in Need, which is clearly not a campaigning organisation for political change. I appreciate that many hon. Members, including me, support the work of Make Poverty History, but Ofcom found that the advert directed viewers to the Make Poverty History website, which encouraged them to lobby the Prime Minister and the Government directly to make the campaign a high priority on the political agenda. The organisation therefore strayed on to the ground of political partiality, and I believe that is why Ofcom made its adjudication. I know that several hon. Members regret that and find it difficult to understand, but the matter was carefully considered in the House during the passage of the Communications Act.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Cuckmere Valley

Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the work being carried out by the National Audit Office on public expenditure by the Environment Agency on the Cuckmere Valley, Sussex.

Alan Williams: The National Audit Office has been involved in correspondence to look into the Environment Agency's expenditure, planning and preparatory work in the Cuckmere estuary in Sussex on whether to breach the river banks and allow the sea to flood the valley. To date, the NAO has reviewed Environment Agency papers that are relevant to its inquiry, interviewed a range of interested parties, discussed matters with Environment Agency staff and is currently considering its response. It is worth noting that it is an unusual topic for the NAO to consider, in that the Environment Agency has not decided on the action that it will take on the estuary as part of its shoreline management plan for the area.

Norman Baker: I am glad that the Environment Agency has not decided yet—perhaps I can influence it. May I welcome the NAO's work on the matter and express the considerable public concern in my area at the fact that the Environment Agency has run up a bill of almost £500,000 on a highly controversial scheme that has no planning permission and lacks public support in the area, where both district councils oppose it? Does not the NAO need to take steps to make it clear to unelected bodies such as the Environment Agency that they can proceed with schemes only with public support, not in the face of public opposition?

Alan Williams: That is obviously a position for the hon. Gentleman to argue. I cannot anticipate the NAO's report but I spoke to the body this morning, and it is aware of the anxiety in the area and will try to produce the report in the next couple of weeks.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Election Expenditure

Graham Allen: What plans the Electoral Commission has to examine the limits on expenditure by candidates in general elections; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission has no current plans for such a review. Its recent recommendations on the variation of election expenses for candidates at UK parliamentary elections came into force on 4 March 2005. The commission also recommended a more fundamental review of the candidate and party spending limits. That is now being considered as part of Sir Hayden Phillips' review of party funding.

Graham Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful reply. We have only to look across the Atlantic to realise what happens when there are no effective limits on national party expenditure. However, although the limits for national expenditure may be too high, all candidates for and Members of Parliament could make a clear case for increasing expenditure limits for local candidates somewhat. At the moment, £7,000 or £8,000 barely covers one direct mail shot to all our electors. Will the hon. Gentleman consider urging the Electoral Commission again to examine the matter more fundamentally?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman will know that when the commission carried out a review in 2004, it took the view that higher limits for candidates' individual expenses would enable them to run more effective campaigns, ensuring that their messages reached more voters. Coupled with a lower limit for national party spending, the commission believes that that would encourage parties to channel more of their funds into local campaigns. Of course, that is one of the issues being considered by Sir Hayden Phillips, whose review is expected shortly.

Simon Hughes: When Sir Hayden Phillips has finished his review, which we understand may be at about the turn of the year, does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Electoral Commission and the Speaker's Committee will examine not just whether we ought to reduce the total limit of campaign expenditure, which the public want, and whether the official election campaign should have a slightly larger limit, but whether to stop the huge expenditure in support of an individual candidate before the general election begins? The public have shown no appetite for that activity, which seems to be wasteful of public expenditure and party funds. It would be a service if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues recommended strongly that that expenditure should be capped at a pretty low level.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission has been involved in a range of initiatives in support of Sir Hayden Phillips' review, and that is precisely one of the issues on which it has focused.

David Taylor: Further to the comment made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), perhaps the Speaker's Committee ought to consider the activities of the midlands industrial council, which, prior to the 2005 general election, pumped enormous sums of money into a range of midlands seats, all of which, coincidentally, happened to be Labour marginals, and all of which had a bigger than average swing. As a part of that covert and shady activity, some fine Members were lost.

Peter Viggers: The Speaker's Committee does not get involved in the detail of administrative matters, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point and it will have been heard by the Electoral Commission.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is strong public opposition to elections being more heavily funded by the taxpayer and the Government? I am happy to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in respect of reducing dramatically the amount that parties spend nationally, but perhaps greater funding of local expenditure to enable candidates to put out better literature might be considered.

Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend has made an important point in his usual effective way.

Chris Bryant: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, is not it an important principle in this country that no British person should have a better chance of election either because they are wealthy or because they have wealthy friends? If so, it is important that we consider expenditure not only during elections but in the year preceding, when many people pump tens of thousands of pounds into certain constituencies—particularly those which are potentially Conservative-leaning—so as to gain an unfair advantage.

Peter Viggers: The review being carried out by Sir Hayden Phillips is very important, and the hon. Gentleman and anyone else is free to make their views known to Sir Hayden Phillips, whose report is expected in the coming weeks.

Public Awareness

Peter Bone: What the expenditure by the Electoral Commission on promoting public awareness of electoral and democratic systems was in 2005-06; and what the estimated expenditure is for 2006-07.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that, for the financial year ending 31 March 2006, the total amount spent on promoting public awareness of electoral and democratic systems was £7.1 million. For 2006-07, the current forecast expenditure on public awareness is £6.3 million.

Peter Bone: Does the hon. Gentleman think that, with the falling turnover year by year, the Electoral Commission is giving the taxpayer good value for money?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission was created by the House, and one of the duties laid on it was a statutory one to promote public awareness of electoral systems and systems of government. As the commission set out in its evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, it is considering focusing its efforts more heavily on promoting voter registration and information about elections and democratic institutions, and less on seeking to encourage voter turnout. I suspect that that would inevitably result in some reduction in expenditure by the commission. The commission will consider the matter further once the Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported.

Overseas Electors

Nigel Evans: What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to encourage those living overseas and eligible to vote to register and vote in UK elections.

Peter Viggers: The commission informs me that since January 2006 it has distributed about 13,200 overseas voter leaflets, and that more than 8,500 overseas registration postal and proxy forms have been downloaded from its website. During elections in which British citizens resident overseas are eligible to vote, it runs campaigns which include newspaper advertising, public relations activity and online information.

Nigel Evans: But the number of eligible overseas voters who register is very small by comparison with those who could. Part of the problem is that very little of the £6.3 million being spent is ever spent on publicising overseas voter eligibility. Could my hon. Friend have talks with the Electoral Commission, which might be able to exert some influence on the Foreign Office? Perhaps our high commissions and embassies could be used to distribute literature on eligibility to overseas voters, and perhaps those who renew their passports abroad could be sent literature in the post with their new passports.

Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend's first point is absolutely right. Some 13 million United Kingdom citizens are resident overseas, and we do not know how many of them are eligible to register to vote by reason of having been registered. Only about 17,000 of those 13 million or so are registered. Although that represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the last couple of years, the figures are extremely small.
	The Electoral Commission does use the facilities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through embassies. It has also recently discussed with the Department of Work and Pensions the possibility of a further list of people whom it could contact.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking a fair and important question.

Young People

Jo Swinson: What progress the Electoral Commission has made in increasing participation by young people in elections.

Peter Viggers: The commission informs me that it has had significant success in increasing young people's interest in politics through activities such as its advertising campaigns, educational resources, workshops and grants programme. An independent survey of people aged between 18 and 24 found that 52 per cent. claimed to have seen the commission's 2006 local elections campaign, and 24 per cent. claimed to have voted because of it.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the recent reduction in the age of candidature to 18. Indeed, I hope to be able to pass on the title of youngest Member of Parliament sooner rather than later as a result. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that we should try to build on that move, and reduce the age of voting and candidature to 16 so that young people can participate in elections as citizens in the fullest possible way?

Peter Viggers: Having conducted a comprehensive review of the matter in 2004, the Electoral Commission concluded that in the short term the voting age should remain at 18, but that it should be reviewed again when the citizenship programme in schools was more established. Interestingly, a recent survey of some 1,000 people showed a majority in favour of retaining the voting age of 18, both among older age groups and among those aged between 15 and 19.

Jim Devine: Would the hon. Gentleman consider sending advice to hon. Members? I conducted a survey of people who attend my surgery and found that, sadly, up to 40 per cent. of the young people who come to see me are not on the electoral register. I have been trying to sign them up, and wonder whether some guidance could be issued.

Peter Viggers: That is an alarming statistic. It is of course for local electoral registration officers to maintain the register and ensure that it is as accurate as possible, but recent legislation passed by the House gives the Electoral Commission powers to involve itself more closely in the work of individual electoral registration officers. I hope that that will have some effect in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Youth Workers

Mark Pritchard: How many youth workers are employed by the Hereford and Lichfield diocese; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: Most youth worker posts are funded not directly by the diocese, but by parishes or clusters of parishes. Two youth workers are currently employed in the Hereford diocese and 20 in the Lichfield diocese, and there are plans for more to be employed.

Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that youth workers do an excellent job in both Shropshire and Herefordshire, and will he assure me that there will be no institutionalised "Christianophobia" when those parishes want access to public funds?

Stuart Bell: I am not entirely clear whether I can enter the domain of public funds, but in recent years there has been considerable growth in the number of young workers employed by local churches, and the commissioners and the general Church welcome and support that.

Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the bishop's growth fund in the diocese of Lichfield, which has been used to encourage new youth workers and leaders who in turn encourage young people to take part in church services throughout the diocese?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the bishop's growth fund. In fact, part of that funding comes from the parish mission fund set up by the commissioners and the archbishops' council to resource all kinds of innovative parish work. I am glad that Lichfield diocese is using that money so wisely and increasing young people's attendance. That is a very good model for others to follow.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Appointments

Andrew Tyrie: What recent steps have been taken on the appointment of a new chairman of the Electoral Commission; and when such steps were taken.

Peter Viggers: The chairman of the Electoral Commission, like the other commissioners, is appointed by Her Majesty, following an address from this House. The appointment of the current chairman, Sam Younger, expires on 18 January 2007. I can announce that on 18 October Mr. Younger was offered a further period of office, to expire on 31 December 2008, subject to the statutory consultation required of the registered leaders of certain political parties and the agreement of this House. Mr. Younger accepted that offer on 27 October and the statutory consultation of party leaders was initiated on 30 October.

Andrew Tyrie: I am heartened by that reply and to learn that Sam Younger's appointment has finally been sorted out. It is in the interests of all of us that such appointments are made in good time, and I was a little concerned that this one might not have been. Will the Committee consider examining the procedure for appointing the chairman with a view to ensuring that such appointments are made in good time in future?

Peter Viggers: Approaching first reappointments on the basis of a satisfactory performance appraisal reflected the approach of the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies and Cabinet guidance on making public appointments. You, Mr. Speaker, invited Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of the House, to carry out an appraisal and consulted the Speaker's Committee. As a result, it was unanimously decided that Mr. Younger should be invited to accept a further term. I note the other points that my hon. Friend has made.

Point of Order

Michael Gove: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your help as the guardian of the rights of this House against the Executive. Earlier this year, I asked a parliamentary question of the Department of Health, which was answered by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is in his place. I asked specifically about the amount that the Department and its constituent units were paying under the EU emissions trading scheme. I was told that the figures were not held centrally. A subsequent freedom of information inquiry showed that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency had that information. An e-mail revealed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 said:
	"In light of the above we...have a complete picture of the exact amount of carbon emitted in 2005."
	That was the year about which I asked. Can you help, Mr. Speaker, when inquiries under the Act reveal that the Government have given misleading answers to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has become expert at raising points of order about late parliamentary questions. If information is available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it should be made available to this House. I hope that Ministers will take note of that point.

Andy Burnham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to assure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), through you, that I will look into how the information was supplied in that written answer and get back to him with a full and complete reply.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the Minister for that.

NHS REDRESS BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the NHS Redress Bill [ Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5th June 2006 (NHS Redress Bill [ Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

NHS Redress Bill [ Lords]

Lords message considered.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Proceedings under scheme

Lords amendment: No. 4A.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment, insists on Commons amendments Nos. 5 and 16, and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.
	I think that it is with some surprise that we find ourselves discussing this amendment. I say that not with any sense of arrogance but because I genuinely feel that the House had a good-natured and constructive debate on the matter. We adopted a reasonable approach in response to concerns raised in another place and in this place in Committee and, as the listening kind of Government that we are, we proposed changes to the Bill, which responded to those concerns and which were passed by a considerable majority of the House.
	For the avoidance of doubt, I shall set out what we believe we are trying to do in the Bill and the NHS redress scheme. We want to create a fast-track settlement scheme that provides a better experience for patients—that has the patient at its heart. We want to facilitate a learning culture at local level where complaints are dealt with openly and transparently. By doing that, we want to bring down the costs to the NHS of clinical negligence claims and create a better culture for the handling of complaints and claims. I am clear that our policy is both workable and right, but I readily acknowledge that the process we went through helpfully focused the Bill for the benefit of patients, and I pay tribute to Opposition Members who helped in that process.

Keith Vaz: May I take my hon. Friend back to a point that was put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), his predecessor as Minister of State, when she appeared before the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs during its proceedings on the Bill? We asked that the Government encourage local health authorities to settle matters locally. Many problems arise because local people do not understand the nature of the procedure and in the initial letter of reply there is no clarity about how matters can be resolved. Resolving matters locally is much better than litigation.

Andy Burnham: I quite agree. It may be helpful to explain again the point that my right hon. Friend raises. In parts of the NHS, there is an unsatisfactory culture for the handling of complaints, so because patients do not receive a satisfactory response when they first make a complaint, they are pushed towards considering options such as a second stage complaint to the Healthcare Commission, or even legal action. However, as I have said before, I do not believe that anybody who makes a complaint does so with the intention of taking the NHS to the cleaners, or to make significant financial gain. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the reason why people pursue complaints is "to stop it happening to somebody else", as they tell us in our surgeries. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard that in his surgeries, as I have in mine. If the NHS was better at engaging with the patient at the point when the complaint was made, the outcome would be better all round. It would certainly be a better outcome for the individual but, ironically, also for the NHS, in that it could learn from patients' experience and try to improve it, from the point at which a complaint was received. However, I entirely take my right hon. Friend's point that the process should be clearer and simpler for the patient.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Will the Government be issuing fresh guidance about how to deal with complaints, to accompany the new statutory provisions for local health authorities? Practice varies according to local health authorities, so if the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister were to give guidance locally, it would help the process.

Andy Burnham: The Bill deals with complaints of negligence where there is a liability in tort and when—as we hope—it is passed, secondary legislation will underpin it, setting out the structure under which we envisage that the scheme will operate. I feel strongly that a rethink is needed about how the NHS handles complaints in the round—not necessarily only complaints where there is a liability in tort. On Friday, I visited a trust that has adopted a much more interventionist approach, by engaging with the individual bringing the complaint to improve the patient experience and so that the trust can learn quickly what is not going right.
	In an era when there is more choice in the NHS, and patients can move around the system, the clever trusts are those that engage with complaints in that way. They are looking closely at the quality of the patient experience and using every bit of information they can get hold of to improve it. I very much go with the grain of what my right hon. Friend says. The scheme will facilitate a better culture, but I want to build on it, so that complaints are handled better.
	I was describing how we improved the Bill, and I was paying tribute to Opposition Members. I should particularly mention the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who made some very helpful suggestions during the Bill's passage through the House. To take one example of the improvements made, we included a measure that allowed investigation reports to be provided to individuals on request. It is partly on account of that amendment that I am surprised to be back discussing the Bill today; it does not appear to have been appreciated in the other place. Earl Howe spoke about the measure in the other place:
	"What have we got? We have a scheme that will see a patient's application for redress disappear into a closed process, one that is the very opposite of transparent. The patient has no idea whether the facts of his case have been looked at fairly or fully."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1240.]
	Earl Howe is a reasonable and fair-minded man, but on the basis of that comment, I am not sure that the import and effect of the amendments agreed to in the Commons were fully appreciated by their lordships. At the instigation of the hon. Member for Romsey, we made a concession and allowed full investigation reports to be made available to the individual, so it seems impossible that such comments could be made.
	We want a scheme that has transparency and accountability built into it, so today we have tabled an amendment that will further improve the accountability of the NHS redress scheme by allowing the naming of the responsible person who could be answerable if a further complaint was made to the health care ombudsman. They would have to be a person of experience and seniority, and that provision will further strengthen the scheme. Not a great deal separates the Government from the Opposition on the Bill, but our differences seem to come down to the issue of independence and independent investigation.

John Baron: Will the Minister confirm that the responsible person that he describes may be of senior rank, but will nevertheless be from within the trust that is being investigated? An investigation into a trust will be carried out by the trust itself, and that cannot add to the credibility of the scheme.

Andy Burnham: I will deal with that point later, but I tell the hon. Gentleman that we have built into the Bill elements that will strengthen the transparency and accountability of the process for the patient. There is genuine disagreement between the Opposition and the Government, but it is important that we see the scheme for what it is—an in-house, first-stage process. Under the scheme, trusts need not go through the long process to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) alluded, but can rather engage with the complaint from the first. They can learn from what happened to the patient, and can then provide speedy redress, thereby improving the experience for the patient and saving the organisation a great deal of time. That is the right thing to do. If the first stage of the scheme included an independent investigation, the scheme would have the same qualities as the process that is available to patients who choose not to pursue their complaint through the redress scheme, or who proceed to litigation because they did not receive satisfaction through the scheme. That is a different proposal, and it would make the scheme entirely different.
	I have to turn the subject back to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). The ideas on independence put forward by the Opposition Front Benchers, both in this House and in another place, have varied considerably during the parliamentary passage of the Bill. When the Bill was first sent to the Commons from another place, it required the Secretary of State for Health to make provision for the appointment of patient redress investigators. There was to be a panel of independent investigators, who were to conduct investigations. The Healthcare Commission was to maintain a list of those investigators, and to oversee them. That model gave rise to problems of cost and practicality, with the Department's own economist estimating a cost of £41 million a year.
	On Report, the hon. Member for Billericay pointed out some of those problems and presented a variation in which the person overseeing the investigation was independent of the scheme member in question. We were told that there would be the same administration, but it would operate under the direction of an independent person, so there would be no new bureaucracy.

John Baron: The Minister is slightly disingenuous, as I tabled probing amendments. The principle remains the same—we believe that whoever investigates the facts should be independent of the trust under investigation. That has been a constant theme throughout. I tabled a probing amendment on redress investigators, but it was never pressed to a vote—it was simply a question of exploring alternatives. We want independence—that is the bottom line—but the Minister has admitted that he will not provide it.

Andy Burnham: I agree that the Opposition have called for independence throughout the passage of the Bill, and various models have been submitted to suggest how that independence could be achieved. On Report, I asked the hon. Gentleman who would employ the independent individuals who would provide oversight. Would they be employed within or outside the NHS? In another place, Earl Howe made it clear that he did not wish to be prescriptive, saying that
	"as one idea, I would propose that where the actions of a particular trust were the subject of a redress claim, a non-executive director of a different trust could be brought in to provide the necessary element of independent scrutiny and oversight."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1241.]
	We simply do not believe that that is a workable model. Non-executive directors could not be expected to have the necessary skills, experience, investigation techniques or time to provide a meaningful overview of investigation under the redress scheme, particularly if required to review investigations by a neighbouring trust.

Graham Stuart: We are puzzled by the Government's refusal to engage with the proposal to introduce more independence, as are many outside bodies. We have tabled many probing amendments and proposals, but it is the Minister who is backed by thousands of civil servants and the Government machine. Has he genuinely tried to find a workable, cost-effective way of introducing more independence? The current scheme does not have the confidence of Opposition Members or many outside organisations.

Andy Burnham: As I explained, we amended the Bill to improve openness, transparency and accountability for the patient concerned. Let me make it absolutely clear, however, that we do not favour an independent scheme, as we would lose the benefits of an NHS trust owning up to, and being open about, mistakes that have been made, learning from them and making changes to prevent such things from happening to other people. That is preferable to a process whereby a third party is engaged to look at the trust and its performance, which would not foster the culture that we are trying to achieve. The right to an independent investigation is not affected by the scheme, as people still have the right to pursue independent legal action if, after receiving the investigation report, they are not confident that their case was adequately investigated. They retain the right to progress to an independent stage. To pull independence into the scheme would create something different, as it is a first-stage scheme. The hon. Gentleman will know that any organisation that receives a complaint conducts a first-stage investigation itself before moving to the second stage, where independence comes into play. Opposition Members have confused the two notions.

Graham Stuart: In Committee, the Minister said that the process would be quick if it was carried out by someone involved in the case. We fear that quickness, because the investigation would be conducted in the interests of an organisation investigating itself. We are still at a loss to understand why the patient who has been wronged should have confidence in the investigative report, even though we are glad that the Minister agreed to allow one to be made. Without independence, that patient will not trust the report.

Andy Burnham: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party feel that the scheme should be independent, but we are proposing something different. We are proposing that when the NHS receives a complaint, it take ownership of it and engage positively and constructively with the individual concerned, rather than passing them from pillar to post, or, as often happens—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can give examples of this from his constituency—for the shutters to come down and people to be forced away. It is much better to encourage a local investigation, and for local learning to take place, and for there to be engagement with the reasons why an individual has presented with a complaint under this scheme. It is a different model entirely to suggest that that should be done independently.
	There have been various different suggestions, such as having redress investigators or an employed third party—although we did not find out more detail about that—and now we have the idea of having a non-executive director, perhaps from a neighbouring trust. Those options would be extremely costly and they would also not be workable.

John Baron: All we are suggesting is that the person who oversees the investigation should be independent of the trust. That is not an expensive option; it is certainly not as expensive as the Government believe—a figure of £41 million has been mentioned. It is absolute nonsense to say that what we are suggesting—that someone independent should come in and head the investigation and oversee things—will create a vast increase in cost.
	On the point about various options, I repeat to the Minister that this is enabling legislation; the detail will be in the regulations. We have put forward suggestions by way of probing amendments, but the principle has been the same: simply that the trust being investigated should not investigate itself. We have tabled probing amendments, but the principle has been absolutely constant: it is a question of independence.

Andy Burnham: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman again that there was a very significant majority in this House when the matter was voted on on Third Reading.

Graham Stuart: That does not make it right.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that that does not make it right, but that is what matters in our parliamentary process—and if he has plans to change it, I would be interested to hear them. As there was a majority of 95 in favour of our proposals, having made amendments such as we did and having listened throughout the progress of the Bill, I am surprised that we are still debating it.
	Do the Opposition really think that, if a neighbouring trust looks at a complaint involving another local trust, that will give the independence that patients are looking for? As far as I can see, that would still be the NHS investigating itself. However, beyond that I am not persuaded by the Opposition's principal point. I am persuaded by a scheme where the NHS handles such situations better itself.
	I am sure that Members of all parties are united by a wish to see a better culture at the first stage when a patient brings a complaint. I am sure that we all find that patients end up in our offices because they do not receive a satisfactory response at that stage from the trust concerned. The only way to change that is to have a system in which trusts engage with complaints in a more constructive way. I fail to see how having independent investigations, where people come into the trust concerned who are not employed by the trust or are non-executive directors of another trust, would foster a better culture in handling such matters.

John Baron: Let me put my point to the Minister in another way. This Bill is a wasted opportunity, as is suggested by the Government's amendments, because there is nothing in it that cannot already happen now. Trusts can investigate themselves now, and the NHS Litigation Authority can make an offer now. The point of introducing independence is that that introduces something new that will give credibility and thoroughness to the fact-finding stage.

Andy Burnham: I believe that the amendments that we have made to the Bill give precisely that. Because patients will be able to read in full their investigation report, they will decide for themselves whether or not that investigation has credibility. If they are not persuaded that it has, their statutory rights are not affected—to use the phrase. They can pursue that case further, because they have been provided with a full copy of that report. That is why I was disappointed to read the comments of Earl Howe, who seemed not to appreciate that we are providing the full details to patients. There is not a closed process, as he described it.
	An amendment was made, in response to pressure from the hon. Member for Romsey, which is a material change to the Bill that strengthens the patient's ability to pursue their legal rights if they are not persuaded by the quality of the investigation. Such an investigation, carried out locally by a trust, would be assessed by the scheme authority—the NHS Litigation Authority—before any assessment of liability or quantum was made. It would assess the quality of that investigation and examine whether it had analysed sufficiently the questions that needed to be checked, so there would be a check on the process.
	To be honest, there is no major disagreement between us, and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Billericay—hand on heart—really thinks that there is. The scheme has been improved because of parliamentary scrutiny, but if the investigation were independent, that would create a very different scheme, and I hope that he appreciates that.
	Meaningful independent oversight will require additional resources in the form of increased staffing and additional bureaucracy to support those undertaking such oversight. They will need support staff to administer the flow of cases, and reciprocal arrangements between scheme members will need to be put in place. We should not forget that the scheme goes wider than NHS trusts and foundation trusts.
	There are many unanswered questions about how the arrangement would work in practice. During debate in another place, Lord Warner asked a range of questions:
	"Does he or she"—
	the overseer—
	"sit on the shoulder of the investigator? How far do they follow through the investigation? Are they a duplicate investigator?"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1247.]
	He was right to ask those questions, but there are further questions. If an investigation is carried out by the scheme member but overseen by an independent person, will the scheme member's staff be answerable to their employer or to the independent overseer for the report's content? What if there is a conflict? What if the member carrying out the investigation and the independent overseer do not agree on the facts in the investigation report? Who resolves the conflict? All sorts of potential problems could arise. How can we possibly agree to amendments tabled and suggestions made by the Opposition when there simply is no workable detail to support the claims being made?

Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. How do he and the Government plan to measure this culture change in the NHS? Are there means in place that will enable the House and those outside to see whether the Minister is right, and that the culture change has indeed been effected without the introduction of our kind of independence?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. We are clear that we want the establishment of this scheme to lead to a much improved experience for the patient and to a reduction in the costs paid by the NHS in fighting clinical negligence claims. I am happy to give a commitment at this Dispatch Box to reviewing whether the scheme achieves the aims that we are setting out for it, and whether it does indeed promote a better culture in the NHS at local level to enable engagement with patient safety issues, because ultimately, that is what we are talking about. This is about clinical governance and patient safety: whether the scheme promotes a learning culture within local organisations, whether it provides a better experience for the patient seeking redress, and whether it enables trusts to reduce the amount that they pay out in fighting lengthy and often difficult legal cases.
	However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), which is a fair one. We should review the scheme to see whether it achieves the objectives that I have set out. If it does not, perhaps other options could be followed, but I have been over this ground many times in preparing for taking the Bill through this place, and I am confident that we are doing the right thing. Many trusts are already adopting a very different agenda because of issues such as patient choice and the need to look more carefully at patient satisfaction. I am confident that a change is already being effected on the ground, but I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be an ongoing review of whether that meets the stated aims.

Graham Stuart: The Minister said that one of the outcomes that he seeks is a reduction in the pay-outs made by trusts. Even if he is right and the Government's proposed system effects a cultural change, is it not possible that there may be an increase in pay-outs because of an NHS that better recognises the mistakes that it has made? I am grateful to him for being so frank and laying out possible measures, but I wonder whether the one that he has described is the right one.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right. My predecessor acknowledged that this scheme might, by facilitating access to redress, lead to more people bringing forward cases and fewer people abandoning cases. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he was on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, a high proportion of cases are abandoned.
	The measure is not principally a cost-cutting scheme. What we want to do is reduce the money that is spent on fighting lengthy processes. That may lead to more money being paid out in redress to those patients who deserve that redress, but it should lead to a reduction—the hon. Gentleman has helpfully given me the opportunity to be clearer about this—in the costs spent in fighting a legal process. As he knows, they can be considerable.
	I was putting on record some of the complicated questions that have yet to be resolved. Someone has to have the final say, and that person has to be knowledgeable about the facts of the case and how the investigation has been undertaken so that they are able to take decisions. It must be someone who has been involved throughout the investigation process, not simply someone who reads the final report.
	The arguments about costs and bureaucracy will not go away. We were told in another place that surely the cost implications were de minimis, but members will still have to carry out their own investigations so there will be duplication and therefore extra costs. Members will not hand over responsibility to another trust.
	I have described the improvements that we have made to the Bill as it has gone through this House. I again pay tribute to colleagues who helped us in that process. As a result, patients will be given their investigation report—let me be absolutely clear about that—and they will also be given a report on the action to be taken to prevent the same mistake from happening again. That, in my view, is overwhelmingly what patients want. It will be a transparent process; patients will know full well whether the facts of their case have been looked into fairly and fully.
	We agree with Opposition Members that the scheme will be given credibility by an open and robust investigation, but we have already provided for that. Credibility will not be given by one scheme member investigating another. We have also tabled an amendment that specifically enables a scheme to provide for investigations to be overseen by a person of a specified description. That overseer will not be independent, but the amendment demonstrates further our commitment to ensuring a thorough local investigation. The scheme can specify the qualifications and experience that the person who oversees the investigation by the scheme member at the local level must have. That will benefit patients. They will know who has overall responsibility for the investigation into their case and who to contact about their investigation.
	I believe that I have been over most of the ground that we have covered and I hope that I have put before the House some of the areas where we have made changes and have sought to be reasonable. I am concerned that the amendments that we passed on Report were not fully appreciated by another place and I urge it to consider the fact that they were passed by a significant majority in this House. I hope that, following today's proceedings and the amendment that we are making to improve further the accountability of the NHS redress scheme, the scheme will now move forward and do what we want it to do—get on with the job of building a better and more responsive complaints-handling process at local level in the NHS and provide a much more satisfactory outcome to patients who bring forward the complaints that we, as Members of Parliament, have to deal with.

John Baron: As the House well knows, the NHS Redress Bill returns, having been amended in the House of Lords. This is the second time that the House of Lords has rejected the Government's proposal. More than 30 Cross-Bench peers voted for our amendment, whereas only one voted against it. That sends a clear signal that our amendment was passed because it is right in principle. It is about patient interests, not party politics.
	As we all know, clinical negligence procedure is a mess. We can all agree on that. It is complex, unfair, slow, costly and wasteful. We welcome the Government's attempts to address those problems but are concerned that the balance between the interests of patients and the health service, as envisaged by the Government, is not right. The redress scheme proposes a genuine alternative for the high volume of modest-value cases. We fully support those good intentions and want the Bill to succeed, but the Government's proposals are fundamentally flawed and do not best serve patient interests.
	Time and time again, patients tell us that they want an explanation of what went wrong and an apology if appropriate. They want to ensure that lessons are learned for the benefit of others. Compensation does not necessarily rank high in people's priorities. The Government's amendments do not, in our view, best meet those priorities. As the Minister has highlighted, the reason for that revolves around the issue of independence. The reason why the Bill has been sent back to us by the House of Lords is that their lordships believe that the investigation of facts under the scheme ought to be independent of the trust in question, whereas the Government believe that it ought to be a completely in-house process. Their lordships are right. Patients will not have confidence in an in-house system. That is why we shall oppose the Government's solution.
	Opposition Members believe that the investigation should be overseen by someone who is independent and unconnected with the trust and with the NHS Litigation Authority. To us, independence is a fundamental principle of natural justice that is enshrined in the rule against bias: no man should be judge in his own case or cause. That avoids a conflict of interest. That is the one common concern of the many organisations outside this place that we have consulted. Even within this place, the Constitutional Affairs Committee, in its report, "Compensation culture", last March, stated:
	"We are concerned that if the organisation which is responsible for defending trusts and hospitals is also charged with running the scheme, there may be a perception (whatever the reality) of a conflict of interest."
	That is terribly important. We can all agree that the interests of the patient must come first, but the best way of guaranteeing those interests is to ensure that the investigation is independent so that it has credibility.

Andy Burnham: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Given that this is a first-stage complaints process, can he name one other public body, or any other organisation at all, that has independent investigation at the first stage?

John Baron: The Minister is going back on himself in one respect, because the whole point of the scheme is that it should provide a genuine alternative to litigation. One key reason why people go to court is that they want to establish the facts in an independent manner. If this scheme is meant to be a genuine alternative to litigation, we should introduce that concept of independence in the scheme itself. Most organisations outside this place would agree with that. It is important to recognise that, if the scheme is an alternative to going to court, we should have regard to that basic need. Patients go to court because they want an independent assessment of the facts. I am afraid that the Government's proposals fail to recognise that basic point.
	I suggest to the Minister that independence is important for another reason. We all want to help to bring about a cultural change within the NHS towards greater openness and transparency. What could be more open and transparent than inviting someone who is independent of the trust to oversee the investigation into all the facts? To most objective observers, a trust investigating itself will not necessarily lead to a cultural change. After all, that can happen now without the Bill: trusts can already investigate themselves and the NHS Litigation Authority can already make an offer of compensation. The Bill does not change that, yet the Government suggest that we need the scheme to encourage such a cultural change.
	By contrast, what seems to be more important to the Government—the Minister has been honest enough to admit this at the Dispatch Box, as he has before—is the ownership of the process itself. They freely concede that the scheme is not independent. As the Minister clarified, the amendment in lieu would not introduce the concept of independence in any way. The Minister argues that, if trusts have ownership, they will somehow be more likely to bring about a cultural shift in openness and transparency. Most people will find that entirely contradictory. The Government are trying to put the cart before the horse. NHS ownership of the scheme might be appropriate for a health system that is characterised by openness and transparency, but it will not in itself get us to that point, as history has shown.
	As we have heard, the Government wish to introduce elements of independence, rather than to embrace independence itself. It might be worth while for the House to scrutinise quickly those elements of independence. The Government suggest that legal advice will be available prior to any offer. We are happy with the concept of legal advice being made available at the time of an offer because legal rights would be considered at that point, but giving legal advice prior to an offer will not make the investigation of the facts independent. Such legal advice will introduce adversarial elements, even though legal rights are not being determined. It will cause a replication of the cost and complexity of litigation.
	The Government also argue that the scheme will make available expert advice, but such advice should be independent anyway. We do not need a scheme to make medical expert advice independent. Meanwhile, it is not clear whether medical reports will consider fact, fault, causation and condition, or whether they will be disclosed.
	The Government suggest that the fact that patients will be able to complain to the ombudsman is another important aspect of independence. However, that applies to complaints of maladministration, rather than substantive investigations of the facts. The Government also point out that, if patients are not happy with the findings of the scheme, the courts will be available. Perversely, that shows the failure of a scheme that purports to provide a genuine alternative to litigation. Advancing such an argument almost defeats the purpose of the scheme itself.
	Unless an investigation of the facts has a badge of independence to reassure patients, the scheme will add nothing whatsoever to what can already happen. As we have mentioned, NHS trusts already have the ability to investigate themselves and the NHSLA has the power to make an assessment of liability and, when appropriate, offer compensation. I put it to the Minister that, unless the Government concede on independence—I do not expect that they will—the Bill will be a wasted opportunity in many respects.
	I wish to touch briefly on separation, because I think that it is relevant to independence. The scheme must be a two-stage process with a strict separation between the functions of fact-finding and fault-finding. An investigation of what happened should not be contaminated by considerations of who was to blame. There is ample legal authority for the rationale of such separation—the principle behind the Inquiries Act 2005 and the coroners' courts—so it is happening throughout the country.
	There is also ample case law of the Court of Appeal that recognises the rationale for the separation of fact-finding from determination of legal liability. We envisage a wide-ranging inquiry that may consider matters of medical professional practice, but does not consider issues of legal liability. That limitation is appropriate because the inquiry is not a court: legal rights are not being defended or asserted.
	The Government appear to concede that there is, in practice, a two-stage process in which fact-finding and fault-finding are separate. In Standing Committee, the Minister said:
	"The scheme, as envisaged, would separate fact-finding from fault-finding in that, locally, it is for the NHS body to carry out the investigation into the facts, and it is then for the scheme authority to consider whether there is liability and, if so, what it should be."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 June 2006; c. 67-68.]
	The Secretary of State made a similar point in this Chamber on Second Reading.
	Does the Minister stand by those remarks? Will he guarantee that there will be a separation of functions between the trust investigating what happened and the NHSLA considering issues of liability? Will he confirm that the body responsible for defending the NHS against claims—the NHSLA—will have no role in determining the facts of the case? I invite the Minister to respond now to those questions.

Andy Burnham: I am happy to do so. I do indeed stand by what I said in Committee, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind a more rigid separation than we do. As I described in my opening remarks, we believe that there will be discussion between the scheme authority and the local trust on the quality of the report and of the investigation, on whether there are gaps and on whether further information needs to be provided. I have in mind a more iterative process and more exchange of information between the bodies. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to confirm that it is principally the trust's responsibility to carry out the investigation and the scheme authority's role to advise on liability and quantum, I am happy to do so.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that clarification. For the record, I am not suggesting a rigid structure—far from it. All I am suggesting is that the function of fact-finding should be confined to the trust investigating at the fact-finding stage. That should not prevent correspondence, liaison and communication between the NHSLA and the trust, as long as the NHSLA plays no part in determining the facts of the case. It must be absolutely clear that the trust determines the facts. Can the Minister confirm that?

Andy Burnham: Yes, I can. It will be the trust's responsibility to carry out the investigation locally.

John Baron: In the light of the Government amendment in lieu, will the Minister explain why he will not allow that separation to be spelled out on the face of the Bill?

Andy Burnham: It is because we have in mind a unified, coherent scheme wherein trusts work closely with the scheme authority to ensure both that thorough and detailed investigation reports are produced and that, based on those reports, correct offers of settlement are made. We have in mind a single scheme, not a multiplicity of schemes once the investigation stage is complete, as the hon. Gentleman seems to envisage. We propose a coherent whole so that we might avoid the need for the legal process and thereby improve the patient experience and reduce the cost to the system as a whole.

John Baron: I suggest to the Minister that his remarks are somewhat contradictory. He has made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he accepts that the fact-finding stage will remain just that—a process to determine the facts—and it will then be up to the NHSLA to assess liability. I therefore cannot understand why that clear separation of the two functions cannot be spelled out on the face of the Bill.
	I ask the Minister to turn his attention to the investigation reports. Clarity about what the report covers is important. Will the report made available to the patient cover only the fact-finding stage, or will it include the fault-finding stage as well? That is important. Any offer will, presumably, be made on a without prejudice basis—in other words, it cannot imply liability—but the reports will not ordinarily be disclosable if they include the fault-finding stage, because they might imply liability. The reports should therefore be restricted to the fact-finding stage only; otherwise, the scheme risks being functionally incoherent. Will the Minister clarify that point for the House?

Andy Burnham: The intention is to make the report available to the patient at the point of an offer being made. I stress that it is the trust's report—the local investigation carried out by the trust—that will be made available. The intention is that that would be made available simultaneously with an offer being made, so the two documents would be read together by the patient.

John Baron: I take it from that response—if I am wrong, I invite the Minister to correct me—that the report would be restricted to the fact-finding stage and the investigation undertaken by the trust.

Andy Burnham: I clarify again that the report would be the product of the local investigation carried out by the trust. I would encourage trusts to go further than simply laying out the facts. If they wanted to make an apology to the patient at that stage or explain what process changes have been made to prevent the same thing from happening again, it would be right and proper for them to do that. I would encourage them to do so, rather than delivering a mechanistic report dealing solely with the facts of the case.

John Baron: I am happy to agree with the Minister. I do not think we have ever disagreed on that point. The trust's role is also to give an explanation and an apology, if appropriate. I thank the Minister for clarifying that the report will cover the investigation undertaken by the trust into the facts. That is extremely important.
	I know that others wish to speak, so I shall touch only briefly on one or two related issues. We all agree that legal advice should be available at the point when an offer of compensation or settlement is made, since legal rights may be determined if they are waived as part of a compromise agreement. However, in an attempt to bolster the independence and credibility of their scheme, the Government have proposed that free legal advice should be made available before legal rights are determined.
	That, in our view, will merely encourage confusion between fact-finding and fault-finding within the scheme, for it is the job of lawyers to assert or defend legal rights. Our concern is that accusations of blame will contaminate the fact-finding process. That will lead, in contrast to what the Minister suggests, to a more closed and defensive culture among NHS staff. As a result, important lessons may not be learned. Such an approach contradicts the Secretary of State's opinion on Second Reading that lawyers should be kept out of the investigation.
	In our view, lawyers are not required during the fact-finding investigation, since legal rights are not being asserted or defended. Much has been made of the contribution of so-called specialist lawyers. The Minister referred to
	"a specialist quality mark in clinical negligence."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1563.]
	Policy and decision making must be based on evidence. I am not aware of evidence of better success rates of specialist lawyers.
	The evidence that I have seen tends to show that their success is comparable to non-specialists. Action against Medical Accidents—AvMA—makes the following statement in its promotional literature:
	"The evidence shows that specialist solicitors are much more likely to make an accurate assessment of the chances of success in claiming compensation for clinical negligence".
	I have asked AvMA to produce the evidence, which it has been unable to do. It should make it clear in its promotional literature that there is no evidence to substantiate its claims. I believe it will eventually be required to do that. That is important, because if the Government seek to bolster the independence and credibility of the scheme by involving specialist lawyers, the performance of such lawyers must be measurable and stand up to independent scrutiny.

Si�n Simon: I declare an interest as a trustee of AvMA. In the hon. Gentleman's view, do non-specialists with no particular knowledge or expertise in a subject have knowledge and expertise as good as people with many years of in-depth knowledge and expertise in that subject, and are they therefore likely to be as successful?

John Baron: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question as a trustee of AvMA. However, whenever we have asked AvMA to provide evidence to substantiate that claim, it has been unable to so; eventually, it will have to address that point.
	We share and support the Government's good intentions as regards providing a genuine alternative to litigation, but the issue of independence is of such crucial importance that their lordships were right to send the Bill back for further consideration. Independence will make the scheme more credible in the eyes of the patient and will promote a culture of greater openness in the NHS. I therefore invite the Minister, even at this late stage, to agree with the Lords about the importance of independence and the separation of fact-finding and fault-finding; I think that he has done so on the latter. If he does not agree with the concept of independence, patients will be the poorer for it, and we will therefore have no alternative but to ask the House to oppose the Government's amendment.

Sandra Gidley: I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who has gone into the issues in some depth. It is a good job that I did not prepare such a lengthy and in-depth speech, because I would not have had time to deliver it.
	There is broad agreement on the general principles of the Bill, which has been welcomed in all parts of the House. It is right and proper that patients are encouraged to complain and that trusts are engaged proactively in that. However, throughout the Bill's passage, Liberal Democrat Members have tried hard to establish two clear principles: a clear separation between fact-finding and fault-finding, and the independence of the process. It has become gradually more apparent that the Government intend that investigations should be thorough and that all the facts should be established before an inquiry is handed over to the next stage. We would prefer a slightly more rigid separation, but we can broadly agree that everything is moving in pretty much the right direction. However, there remains a problem with the NHS Litigation Authority taking over at that stage, because its job is, in effect, to protect the NHS from over-large claims and often to challenge such claims. Rightly, part of its remit is to protect the public purse, but that seems counterintuitive as regards the stated aim of the Bill, which is to be on the side of the patient. Many patient groups perceive the NHSLA to be on the side not of the patient but of the NHS. However, this is not the place to rehearse those arguments at length.
	In the time that I have left, I want to concentrate on the outstanding point of differenceindependence. During the Bill's passage, there have been numerous attempts to introduce different mechanisms for dealing with that problem that the Minister could accept. He has been generous in other parts of the Bill, so I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he seems to be bogged down in those mechanisms and has found fault with each idea without recognising the broad principle. When we saw the Government's amendment, our first thought was that it could represent a concession whereby the Government could introduce independence if they so wished, but sadly that has proved not to be the case.
	If the Minister will not listen to Opposition Members on this matter, perhaps he will be more persuaded by others. When the Bill was introduced, the Patients Association said:
	The Government has shied away from the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations, only two years ago, and wants to introduce a system that is unfair, is not independent and less rigorous.
	Dr. Gerard Panting of the Medical Protection Society made a slightly different point when he said that, for the NHS redress scheme to command the confidence both of the public and of health care professionals, it is important that independent advice be available. Most of the patient groups that I have spoken to have expressed concern that an in-trust investigation would not be independent.
	People with real expertise have been involved with this Bill in the other place, including my noble Friend Baroness Neuberger, who said:
	The Minister will forgive me if I go back to an earlier time in my life, when I was part of the advisory group that worked up the previous complaints system. We all, in good faith, believed that an in-house complaints investigation system could work. He will also know, because this will have landed on his desk now and in previous incarnations, that we were wrong. As an NHS chairman, like the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I chaired a community health service NHS trust and had to sign off the letters responding to complaints. Very often, I felt that the trust investigated itself fairly. Sometimes I did not. Either way, it was equally clear that the punters outsidethe patients and their familieswere dissatisfied because no one outside had had a proper look.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1243.]
	Clearly that is something that we want to avoid. I believe that the Minister is well intentioned, but I hope that he will learn from the experience of others that this provision is potentially flawed.
	An independent overseer would be in a better position to identify the organisational dysfunctions that we must acknowledge occur in some organisations. I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will review the issue. Will he describe the time scale involved? Will he also consider introducing either a pilot scheme or enabling legislation so that trusts may choose whether to have an independent overseer? Alternatively, there could be a few experimental areas in which independence is tried out, so that when the system is reviewed, we can make a full comparison to determine which method works best in the interests of patients.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
	 The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL [ LORDS]

Read a Second time.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
	That the Bill be not committed. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [ LORDS]

Read a Second time.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills) and Order [26 October],
	That the Bill be not committed .[Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (WALES) BILL [ LORDS]

Read a Second time.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
	That the Bill be not committed. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

ANIMAL WELFARE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10th January and 14th March 2006 (Animal Welfare Bill (Programme) and Animal Welfare Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Liz Blackman]
	 Question agreed to.

Animal Welfare Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 6
	  
	Docking of dogs' tails

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 and 52.

Ben Bradshaw: Let me first take the opportunity to thank those in the other place, particularly Lady Byford, Lady Miller and my colleagues Lord Bach and Lord Rooker, for their hard work on the Bill after it left the House of Commons. I also thank all Members of this House.
	It is especially nice to see some doughty animal welfare champions present today, including the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) andin his old place on the Liberal Democrat Front Benchthe hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). On the Labour Benches, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove). My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon must have just dashed out; she was here a minute ago. Both my hon. Friends played an important part in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon can take credit for some of the improvements in relation to circus animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is also present, does sterling work as chairman of the all-party animal welfare group.
	It is incumbent on me to thank the public and all the animal welfare organisations that have had such an important

Frank Field: Role?

Ben Bradshaw: Such an important input and role, yes. I do not quite recall my right hon. Friend playing such a large part in the Bill's passage, but it is very nice to see him in his place.
	I thank the animal welfare groups and the public, who responded to our consultation in record numbers. Last but not least, I thank my excellent officials from the Department, who have done a terrific job working across the parties to try to secure what I hope will be an important, historic measure that will receive Royal Assent shortly. It might help Members to know in advance that the Government will accept all the Lords amendments.

David Lepper: As my hon. Friend will know, a number of aspects of the Bill, especially the holding of pet fairs, will be subject to the making of regulations. In the light of a recent judgment and my hon. Friend's statement on it, will he guarantee that there will be extensive consultation on the detail of regulations to ensure that such events are organised only by hobbyist and interest groups? Will he guarantee that the regulations will be cast-iron, and thatwithin reasonthere can be no breaches?

Ben Bradshaw: I am happy to give that reassurance. I will say a little more about pet fairs when we discuss the time scale for regulations, but my hon. Friend is right. There are three issues in relation to which matters of substance have shifted somewhat since they were last discussed in this House. As he says, the issue of pet fairs is one of them because of the legal judgment; the other two are circuses and greyhounds. I will say a little about all three later.
	This group of amendments deals with tail docking, which, as hon. Members will probably recall, was debated at length in this House. Following a free vote, an offence was created of docking a dog's tail other than for medical treatment unless the dog is a certified working dog. The amendments made in the other place do not in any way deviate from that policy, but they are necessary to give full and proper effect to it. Several amendments agreed in the other place are technical, to address an oversight in the drafting of the delegated power, which did not completely allow us to achieve the policy that I described in the debate before the free vote.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister address amendment No. 2, which mentions dogs of a type. What will be the position for dogs that are not pure bredhalf breeds or mongrelsbut have, for example, a spaniel-like tendency?

Ben Bradshaw: I shall come on to the issue of specific types, but I specifically committed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, to restricting the types of dogs that can be docked to spaniels, terriers, hunt-point-retrieve breeds and crosses of any of those types. The amendments are necessary to allow us to achieve that very restriction.
	A further set of amendments was agreed on Report in the other place.

Douglas Hogg: How far down the pedigree will the authority allow vets to go? Some dogs have spaniels two or three steps down the generational ladder. How is the vet to be satisfied that the dog meets the definition of a working dog? I have some difficulty in understanding that.

Ben Bradshaw: That is why we are leaving it up to the discretion of vets. They will generally take their responsibilities seriously and they will require a certification that the dog will be used for shooting in some way. It is better for vets to be able to make a decision about whether a dog belongs to one of those breeds or is a mix, provided the evidence is given to them by the owner. It is not up to us to second-guess how they will arrive at that decision.

Eric Martlew: My concern is that the amendment could drive a coach and horses through the provisions in the Bill. If my hon. Friend recalls the position, vets should notethically speakingbe docking tails, but some are doing so. My fear is that those vets who are prepared to dock tails will accept any dog as falling within the definition.

Ben Bradshaw: If they did so, they would be in contravention of the Bill. I do not want to revisit the long debates we had on the issue. My hon. Friend lost the vote when we had a free vote, and those of us who advocated an exemption for working breeds won the vote. We have worked hard to try to make the process as easy as possible. If one looks at the animal welfare provision in countries that have the blanket ban that he advocates, it is apparent that it does not work in many cases, because they do not have the accompanying ban on showing, for example, or they have not tightened the regulations in the way we have. My officials and I are confident that this is probably the best we are going to get, given the will of the House as expressed in that free vote. At this late hour, it is not even possible to revisit that.
	A further set of amendments was agreed in the other place, prompted by concerns raised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It was worried that vets could be accountable if they had been misled into docking a dog illegally and that assessing a dog as likely to work from evidence provided was not within their professional expertise and training. Instead, the amendments will allow a vet to certify that he has seen the evidence required by regulations to demonstrate that a dog is likely to work.

Bill Wiggin: I echo the thanks from the Minister to those who have worked so hard on the Bill to ensure that it is as good as it is, including those in the other place, officials and the RSPCA and other animal welfare charities and groups. I am also pleased that the Bill has returned from the other place with the working dog exemption, for which this House voted, still in place.
	As the Minister said, tail docking and the debates it sparked in Committee and in the Chamber have been the most emotive and controversial parts of the Bill, but we have reached a rational and reasoned position. The amendments, which were originally suggested by Lord Soulsby and then taken on by the Government, offer a sensible way forward. The RCVS has expressed concerns about veterinary surgeons being responsible for determining whether a dog is a working dog and the legal liabilities that would entail. When vets are docking the tail of a working dog they want proof of the need to dock the tail to lie with the dog's owner or handler; otherwise they will be reluctant to carry out the procedure. The amendment resolves those concerns.
	We remain uncertain, nevertheless, about which breeds of dog the Government will permit to be docked, as well as about what evidence will demonstrate that a dog is to be used for working purposes, although the Minister touched on that point in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I was a little surprised to read the comments of Lord Rooker, who stated that he did
	not specifically know how the animals will be identified.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 998.]
	Although I hope that will be detailed in the forthcoming regulations, it would be helpful if the Minister made things a little clearer. Will he let us know when he plans to publish which breeds will qualify as working dogs, and when he will indicate the form of evidence that will be required to prove that a dog may work?
	On Report in the other place, also at column 998, Lord Rooker was asked whether some form of micro-chipping would be used to identify working dogs whose tails had been docked when they were puppies. Is the Minister any closer to deciding whether micro-chipping will have a role to play in identifying working dogs?

Douglas Hogg: I am not against the docking of the tails of working dogs; indeed, in many cases it is wholly appropriate, but I want to say a few words about amendment No. 2. I would prefer to leave the question of identifying types to the discretion of the veterinary surgeon. However, that will not be the impact of the amendment.
	As I understand it, the authority will, by regulation, determine whether a dog is capable of falling within the classification working dogthat it is of a type. That may not be particularly difficult when one is dealing with pure breeds, but it becomes very difficult when dealing with crosses, especially when somewhere down the track the grandsire or the grandmother is a spaniel.
	The proposed procedure is curious, because I do not see how the regulating authority will be able to define a dog, other than a pure-bred animal, as a type capable of falling within the classification working dog. That is not leaving things to the discretion of the veterinary surgeon, as the Minister suggested; it gives the definitional function to the authority and it is not easy to perform that function other than in relation to pure breeds.

Norman Baker: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I accept that a problem will inevitably occur if exceptions are made. The House has decided to make an exception to allow some tail docking so a definitional problem must automatically follow.
	I normally agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his analysis of such matters, but in this case it depends on the regulations. Flexibility for veterinary surgeons could be built into the regulationsindeed, it would be extraordinary if it were notso we should wait until they are published before making a judgment. However, although I agree that it is important that such matters should be as clear as possible, it is also important that we do not end up with bad law, so that a vet could regard an animal as a working dog but would not be allowed to make that judgment due to the drafting of the regulations. In a sense, this discussion is about what the regulations might say, and the Minister and his officials will no doubt take it into account when they are drafted.
	I should like to respond to the Minister's opening remarks. He has dealt with the Bill in a welcome manner, and the measure is better for the open response that he and his officials showed.

Ben Bradshaw: In answer to the questions posed, the list will have to be published alongside the regulations, and that will coincide with the implementation of the Bill in spring 2007. Let me respond to part, if not all, of the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about how a vet certifying a dog could be sure of whether it was descended from a dog that had been cross-bred several generations ago. I am advised by my officials that a veterinary surgeon who certifies a dog must see the damthat is, the motherwhich would have to be of a recognisable type. The mother is likely to be a pure breed in most cases. That is the advice that I received from our vets. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), the regulations will specify that a dog must be identified by micro-chip.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 7
	  
	Administration of poisons etc.

Lords amendment: No. 10.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 11.

Ben Bradshaw: Lords amendment No. 10 will ensure that there is consistency in the Bill, and addresses an anomaly that resulted from an amendment made to the Bill earlier, in this House. Clause 8 was amended on Report to clarify the defences available for certain elements of the offence of animal fighting. Those defences are lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 were proposed to ensure that the defences in clause 7, which is on the administration of poisons and other matters, were consistent with the approach taken in clause 8. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Bill Wiggin: I was slightly surprised to see that Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 had been made to the Bill. If the Minister casts his mind back to Committee in January, he will remember that we debated the issue while considering an amendment that I tabled on liability for incidents of accidental poisoning. During that debate, he assured me that the clause covered accidental poisonings. He said that
	it reflects the original 1911 Act offence, which employed a test of reasonable cause or excuse.
	He went on to state that he believed
	that that is a perfectly reasonable standard to set and that it is adequate.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 87.]
	Given his previous satisfaction with this clause, will he explain to the House how the addition of the word reasonable will make a difference, and can he give some examples?

Ben Bradshaw: Well

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Technically, the Minister must ask the leave of the House when he responds.

Ben Bradshaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to that point. One example would be the case of a journalist who was present at an animal fight. It would not be possible to say that that journalist had lawful authority to be present, but he could have a reasonable excuse. The amendment allows us to make sure that there is consistency throughout the Bill, by ensuring that the word reasonable is included in clause 7, as it is in other parts of the Bill.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Clause 13
	  
	Licensing or registration of activities involving animals

Lords amendment: No. 12.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 and 53.

Ben Bradshaw: The Lords amendments deal with the making of regulations, and give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to raise any concerns about the proposed time scale for the laying of regulations under the Bill. I urge the House to agree with all the Lords amendments, which were made by the Government on Report in the other place, and reflect commitments that my colleague, Lord Rooker, gave both in Grand Committee and in the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 19 introduce a duty to consult before introducing any licensing or registration schemes under clause 13, and before revoking a code of practice under clause 17.
	Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 18 are minor drafting amendments to bring the wording of the duty to consult under clauses 15 and 16 into line with the wording of the duty in clauses 12, 13 and 17. Lords amendment No. 53 responds to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that if a code of practice is revoked and not replaced there is no parliamentary procedure governing that decision. In practice, we do not think that that will often happen, if at all, but because it would be an exceptional occurrence, we agree that parliamentary scrutiny of the decision is appropriate. On that basis, I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.

Bill Wiggin: The subtle changes to the wording of the provisions for making regulations under the legislation are important, as they appear to widen the scope for consultation. The Opposition have pushed for similar measures throughout, especially in Committee, when the Minister reassured us that such technical amendments were not necessary. It is important when drafting regulations and codes that everyone with an interest in those matters should have their say and not be excluded. Members with a keen interest in this Bill will have been lobbied on various provisions by a wide range of people and organisations, and by considering all those views we have managed to produce a better Bill.
	I wish to sound a note of caution, however, about the amendments and the question of whom the Minister chooses to consult. The Bill is improved by the requirement that the Secretary of State consult individuals
	appearing to him to represent any interests concerned,
	as opposed to consulting
	such persons about the draft as he thinks fit .
	I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that he will consult individuals who do not necessarily represent a specific organisation or interest, too, and consider their views. If the Lords amendments shift the emphasis from individuals to delegates and representatives, someone who wants to be heard must be backed by a group. That is fine, unless individuals are prevented from participating in the consultation, because they are not part of a group. I am sure that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
	It is important to conduct a thorough consultation on the future codes and regulations on which much of the legislation depends and on which owners, inspectors, prosecutors and the courts will base their decisions. We must wait for the individual animal codes to see how we can ensure that our cats have enough mental stimulation and are not too fat or too thin. We must wait to see the status of animals in circuses and the definition of pet fairs. We must wait, too, for the codes and regulations that govern the welfare of racing greyhounds. There is tremendous pressure on the Minister to produce those codes sooner rather than later, and I am pleased that he has already prioritised greyhounds. There is a need for action now, as the stories in the newspapers over the summer about the killing of tens of thousands of dogs demonstrated. I hope, however, that the extra time will be used wisely for a thorough consultation and scrutiny by Parliament.
	It would be helpful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the production of those codes and regulations, and told us which working groups he has established. In Committee, he could not tell us how many codes of practice he intended to introduce. Will he sketch out his ideas for pre-legislative scrutiny of the codes, which are subject to negative resolution? I hope that there will be no need to pray against them. Will he explain how consistency will be maintained across Great Britain in producing regulations and codes, as Scotland has a different Act and Wales can produce its own secondary legislation? With regard to his earlier responses, different definitions could apply to the docking of working dogs in Wales. I hope that we will have an opportunity for helpful pre-legislative scrutiny before the codes are introduced in statutory instruments, and I hope that he can reassure me about the importance of allowing individuals to take part in consultation.

Eric Martlew: The Animal Welfare Bill is a landmark Bill. It is tremendous; anybody who is involved in animal welfare will applaud it. In the future, when the Minister looks back following a long ministerial career, he will take pride in the fact that he took it through the House.
	I wish to say something about the regulations on racing greyhounds. As has been pointed out, earlier this year in  The Sunday Times there was an horrendous story about the slaughter of up to 10,000 greyhounds in County Durham. There is obviously an urgent need to address the issue. Can the Minister give us an idea of what the timetable will be for that, and what attention will be given to non-regulated tracks?

Ann Widdecombe: I shall concentrate on two issues. First, regulations are usually designed to give effect to a Bill that has been agreed to by the House and the measures contained therein, but in respect of pet fairs, the Government have radically changed their position from that which they set out when they initially brought the Bill before the House, and the banning of pet fairs is not in the Bill. Therefore, in many ways we are completely at the mercy of the Government in respect of what they do with regulations on this matter, because there is nothing in the Bill to guide them.
	I have been very concerned about the Government's attitude towards pet fairs throughout. I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who said that this is a most important Bill and that people with an interest in animal welfare will welcome it. Those of us with an interest in animal welfare were baffled, however, at the original decision that pet fairs would not be banned. We were further concerned when the current situation was tested to the limit in June of this year when the Parrot Society UKapparently acting on the advice of somebody in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who it is said has been involved in the drafting of this Billorganised a one-day public bird sale to test the state of the law and proclaimed that the birds were not pet birds, but were breeding birds.
	When there are such ways of getting around the lawor of attempting to do soI am somewhat dubious about the whole of this business being left to regulations, although I accept that I am now faced with a fait accompli. As I understand it, the Minister is proposing that new measures will be laid in regulations permitting occasional private and non-commercial sales between hobbyists. I think that most of us could say, Yes, that is perfectly reasonable., but we should look at the way that the law was circumventedor the way that an attempt was made to do sowith that parrot fair. Thousands were in attendance; it was not a hobby fair at all. Therefore, we need to be assured that these regulations will be extremely tight, and that there will be a good opportunity for this House to examine them before they just get relegated to being statutory instruments, when it will all become a fait accompli.
	The second thing that I am particularly concerned about is the codes. I have looked at the draft code: I have looked at it, I have blinked in disbelief and I have read it again. Apparently, I, as a cat owner, who has had cats that have lived to be 23 before now

Shona McIsaac: Hear, hear.

Ann Widdecombe: I thank the hon. Lady. I, as a cat owner, who has had cats that have lived to be 23 before now and who regularly takes them to the vet and deeply attends to their welfare, am now being told that I commit an offence if I cannot saywhich I cannothow much my cat should weigh in order to keep me within the law, relevant to its bone structure, its size and its breed. I do not have a clue about that.
	Furthermore, I am informed that I commit an offenceif this code of practice informs the lawif I do not provide for due privacy for my cats when they visit the litter box. The code actually says that we must take cognisance of an animal's preference for privacy. Do the people who wrote this code have any experience of animals' preference for privacy? They do not have any preference for privacy when they are discharging their natural functions. They will walk out during a barbecue and do it there and then, in the middle of the lawn. However, I commit an offence in law if I do not have regard for the animal's preference for privacy.
	That may sound entirely humorous, but it genuinely is in the code of practice. The more serious point is that we all know what happens when codes and regulations get too detailed and the implementers get too zealous: ordinary citizens who cannot get the police round when they have been burgled find that they are on the wrong end of the law for what most people would consider entirely silly nonsense. We have to know that this code of practice, with all its silly detail, will be applied only with an exceptionally light hand and only in the spirit of the legislation, which talks about neglect, cruelty and indifference to welfare, and that it will not penalise some poor owner who cannot say how much her cat should weigh. I will of course make a point of asking the vet about that when my cats go for their annual boosters, and I will write the information down and carry it round in my pocket, so that I can pull it out if I am ever asked for it. I say that only slightly sarcastically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that law has a habit of growing its own legs.

Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly said that this is a good Bill which is welcomed in all parts of the House, but ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have taken on trust promises from the Government to introduce codes on a range of matters that are of great concern to Members in all parts of the House, and we have not disbelieved the Minister's integrity or his intention to introduce them. We were told, clich notwithstanding, that this was not going to be a Christmas tree Billa phrase used regularly in Committee and even on Second Reading. However, we must ensure that these codes are introduced quickly and as a matter of priority, as people would wishI agree that the issue of greyhounds also needs to be dealt with speedilyand, to pick up on the point just made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that they are well written. I have no idea how much my cats weigh, either, and I have no intention of finding out.
	We must press the Minister this afternoon for some indication of what he is doing about these outstanding matters. He was good enough to say in his introductory remarks that he would give such an indication, and I assume that, as we are discussing codes, he feels that this is the appropriate time to do so. Although we have made welcome significant progress in a number of areas, even at this very late stage in the Bill's considerationat five minutes to midnightthere remain unresolved issues on which it is not quite clear where the Government are going. For example, the situation regarding circuses has, if anything, become less rather than more clear as a consequence of the Bill's passage through the Lords. Lord Rooker said that
	we have given a commitment to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1002.]
	But between Report and Third Reading, he wrote to peers saying,
	It is not correct to say the remit of the group
	the group being set up by the Government
	is to examine which species should be banned from performing.
	Those two statements could be read as being slightly contradictory, and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the position this afternoon.
	Can the Minister also say whether, ultimately, the codes will consider issues such as training and performance, which the circus working group appears not to have taken on board? It is a question not simply of the winter conditions in which animals are kept, but how they are performedor otherwiseand trained. The Minister will know that there are significant concerns about the training methods used in circuses; indeed, that is one reason why many of us feel uncomfortable about animals being in circuses in the first place. I hope that the Minister can offer some clarification.
	The Minister will also be aware that minimum display pen sizes are an issue. I hope that they will feature in the regulations, notwithstanding the light touch that, in theory, I endorse. Those of us who advocate a light touch also want some detail on issues such as pen sizes, given the current significant variation between the average circus pen size andif we are comparing zoo licensing conditions with circuses, as the Minister has considered doingthe average zoo outdoor pen size.
	The Minister has still some way to go to achieve the conditions that I would like to see, which, with the possible exception of dogs and horses, is an end to performing animals in circuses. There is even more need to provide clarification of the Government's intentions, which are still not entirely clear even at this late stage of the Bill.
	In common with the Minister and the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I should like to mention greyhounds. I hope that the Minister will confirm that their welfare is a priority for his codes and that the matter will be dealt with sooner rather than later, particularly given, as the hon. Member for Leominster said, some of the terrible stories that appeared in the national press over the summer. I do not know whether I should declare an interest, but my brother breeds greyhounds [Interruption]. He does; one cannot be judged by one's family. My brother tells me that he is concerned by the existing loopholes and he wants them closed. I know from someone I know in the industry that there is concern about those matters. Those who act responsibly in the industry, as much as those outside it, want the provisions tightened up.

Kevin Brennan: Does he give you any tips?

Norman Baker: He has not given me any tips, but if he does, I shall communicate them in due course.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to pet fairs. We should be grateful that the Government have moved on this issue as their position was unsustainable in the early stages. They have listened, but there are still problems with the types of events that are referred to and there are gaping loopholes. It is all very well to say that the commercial sale of animals will be prohibitedwe can all agree with thatbut what is and is not a commercial sale? Who is going to police the provision and who will determine what is such a sale? We need a law not only that we agree with philosophically, but that can be understood and enforced by the enforcement agencies and can be interpreted by the courts. I am not sure that we have got that for pet fairs.
	We have the unsatisfactory position by which the Pet Animals Act 1951 is subject to varying interpretation by local authorities. This is the opportunity to sort that out once and for all and arrive at a position with which people agree. I fear that we will not do that.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, because of the nature of the Bill, we could end up with different rules in Scotland and in Wales.

Norman Baker: We could, indeed, end up with that, but I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I went on about devolution in too much detail. We will have problems, but it is an inevitable part of devolution. It is not a reason not to have different rules by which the Scots and the Welsh are entitled to express their opinions and form their own legislation. For England at least, I hope that we have a clear answer from the Minister that gives us confidence not only that the will of the House is being met but that codes will be drawn to be enforceable.

David Lepper: Although I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, like the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I was one of those who spent many happy and sometimes fraught hours a couple of years ago on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee considering the draft Bill and making proposals about the legislation. I am therefore pleased to be here today to consider the last stage of the Bill's passage through the House.
	Like others, I welcome the Bill as landmark legislation of which the Government and all those involved in its framing can be proud. Although I welcome the Minister's comments about the scrutiny of regulations and the written announcement on the Government's attitude to pet fairs that he made on, I believe, 10 October, following the Stafford pet fair judgment, I wish briefly to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).
	I assure the Minister that there will be many Members of the House, and many organisations and individuals outside it, who will look carefully at the regulations in relation to pet fairs. I am one of those who wish that the Government had taken the opportunity to interpret what many of us felt was the existing law in the way in which some local authorities have been interpreting it for years: that is, to say that pet fairs are against the law and should not be licensed. Unfortunately, there was inconsistency. Now we have a kind of consistency in the Government's proposals in that commercial pet fairs and markets are not to be licensed, but those organised by groups of hobbyists and specialist societies concerned with a particular breed or species of animal might well be able to find themselves with a licence.
	I am afraid that the sad history of pet fairs leads me to believe that there will be many people who will do their utmost to circumvent those regulations. Many people with informed views on the subject believe that not only would that bring the law into disrepute, but it may have sad consequences for animal welfare itself, because of the conditions at many pet fairs that have taken place in the past. I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their position during the course of the consideration of the Bill.

David Drew: Like my hon. Friend, I spent many an hour on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is interesting that the Government basically stopped all shows during the time when there was a big threat of avian influenza. In these days when animal diseases are much more prevalent, the issue is not just animal welfare, but its interconnectedness with the fact that there is a threat if there are large numbers of birds or animals together. Does he agree that the Government ought to bear that in mind?

David Lepper: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, I drew the Minister's attention to many people's concerns about the potential for the spread of avian flu as a result of the conditions in some bird fairs.
	I emphasise again that, although I welcome what the Minister has said and will listen with interest to what he has to say in answer to the hon. Member for Leominster about the consultation on and scrutiny of the regulations, I assure him that many of us here, and outside Parliament, will look carefully at the detail to ensure that the more unscrupulous elements involved in the so-called caremore often the tradingof birds and animals do not get their way.

Douglas Hogg: I rise simply to support the determination of the Government to consult, as reflected in Lords amendment No. 12. I have two comments that I hope may reinforce the Government's commitment to consult effectively. First, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) said.  [ Interruption. ] I am sorry if I mispronounced his constituency. The phrase to represent any interests is a narrowing phrase, because it confines itself, on the face of it, to those who represent interest groups established by association or institution or whatever.
	It would be a great pity if the consultation were limited to such persons, especially when one sees the scope of the activities to which the regulations extend, as set out in subsections (5) and (8) of clause 13. They are activities in which many members of the public have a wide interest, even if they do not belong to one of the recognised interest groups. For example, I possess a dog, I ride, shoot, fish and all the rest of it, but I belong to no association other than the Countryside Alliance. However, I undoubtedly have a range of interestsloosely definedand I would like to be one of the people to be consulted. I thus hope that the consultation powers will be widely interpreted.
	Although we do not often agree on such matters, I think that I will echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on the nature of the consultation. In this instance, as in so many, the Government will rely on statutory instruments. We all know that statutory instruments are an imperfect way of legislating because they are either approved or rejected in whole. I would like the Government to be willing to lay before the House the regulations and the codein so far as it is different from a regulationin true draft for comment, before they are laid before the House for approval. That would enable the Government to take account of the views of right hon. and hon. Members on the draft, as opposed to the measure for approval, and allow members of the public to comment on the original draft. The Government would thus be able to test the acceptability of their proposal and amend it in time so that the House would not approve an imperfect draft.

Shona McIsaac: As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is a major step forward for animal welfare, because it updates 100-year-old legislation. We should be proud of that, but as others have said, we will be relying on regulations, which causes me some worry. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, if there is concern about a regulation that has been tabled, there is little that we can do about it. I was thus also going to suggest that drafts of such regulations should be produced before they are finally tabled, to allow comment and consultation. That would allow the organisations involved in discussions to point out possible flaws and problems with the regulations.
	I am worried about circuses, although I will not make a lengthy speech on the subject. Contradictory comments have been made about the pathway of the discussions that are under way. I know that there is worry about the discussions on drawing up the regulations, so it would be useful to see regulations in draft before we finally approve them.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the working party that has been set up to discuss the arrangements for circuses should be called to account? It should give a clear definition of what it is doing and explain the way in which it carries out its discussions before bringing forward recommendations, because that is not clear to me, at least at the moment.

Shona McIsaac: I certainly agree that it would be useful to know the terms of reference of the working group, which will influence the regulations that are finally approved.
	I am trying to reflect the mood of the House on Second Reading. At that time, we did not wish to go down the road of banning certain species, but that appears to be the direction in which the discussion group is moving. If anything, there should be a prohibition on performing animals. Any circus that wished to have performing animalsdogs, or perhaps a horsecould then apply for an exemption from the prohibition. Such a scheme would be a better way forward and would reflect the mood of the House on Second Reading.
	To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) said, there will be people who will try their very best to circumvent any regulation that we put in place. That is a serious concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and I know a man in our area who will do anything he can to circumvent any regulations that we impose in respect of tail docking. I do not believe that he will stick to any such regulations. He will say that a cross-breed dog's grandparent was a spaniel, for example, and use any way he can to get around the law.
	Enforcement is also a serious concern. I have recently been dealing with a case in Cleethorpes of a small zoo. The vets who inspected the conditions in which animals in the zoo were kept issued a damning report, but the local authority went ahead and gave the zoo a licence to keep the animals. We have to be careful about how we enforce the regulations that we impose, so that we can take on those who will do all they can to circumvent the law. Sadly, not everyone in Britain is an animal lover, despite the excellent work that the Bill represents.

Ben Bradshaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
	Let me begin by trying to reassure the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about consultation. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have been prepared to hear representations from all interested individuals, and I am sure that my successors, whoever they are, will do the same. There is no intention to restrict consultation to people who have a particular interest in the subject of the regulation.
	As a rule, we try to lay regulations in draft so that anyone can comment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. However, there is a trade-off between the number of consultations one has in hand and their different stages and speed. Ministers are always under pressure from some quarters to get regulations made as quickly as possible, but it is important that consultation takes place properly. The draft cat code is a case in point: it was published as a draft in an attempt to help hon. Members following a request made in Standing Committee, but we made it clear at the time that it was merely a prototype. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it was far too long and too detailed.

Norman Baker: If a consultation document is published on the web, for example, those who are interested will no doubt find it and be able to comment. However, some parish councillors in my patch complain to me that they are consulted on matters that have nothing to do with them. There is a balance to be struck: matters must be made available for consultation without swamping people who have no interest in the subject.

Ben Bradshaw: I agree completely.
	The hon. Member for Leominster asked which working groups are already up and running. There are groups on the primates code, the cat code, the dog code, circuses, and greyhounds. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations in an effort to achieve as great a degree of consistency as possible, but as one or two hon. Members pointed out, we might end up in different places on certain aspects of the Bill. I hope that we do not, but it is possible.
	As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, our original intention was to regulate the commercial selling of pet animals at pet fairs through a licensing scheme to be enforced by local authorities, but the High Court judgment of 14 June 2006 in relation to a judicial review in the case of Haynes  v. Stafford borough council, which was about the issuing of a licence to the organisers of a pet fair under the Pet Animals Act 1951, led us to review our position. One of the findings of that review was that local authorities could not issue licences under the 1951 Act to organisers of pet fairs where those events fell within the activity described in section 2 of the Act and involved the sale of pet animals as part of a business to members of the public.
	In the light of that judgment, the Government propose to prohibit the sale of pet animals to members of the public where this is part of a business at pet fairs. However, we also propose to make exceptions to this prohibition in the case of koi carp shows, racing pigeon sales and poultry sales. Such events will be licensed by local authorities under regulations to be made under the Bill. Events where there is no selling of animals to members of the public, or where there is selling of animals but not in the course of a business, such as hobbyists selling excess stock, will continue to take place.
	All events where animals are present will be subject to the welfare offence, whether or not they are specifically regulated by a local authority. We believe, and we have received a large amount of support from animal welfare organisations and some of the hobbyist organisations, that the revised proposals on pet fairs, combined with our proposals to raise the standards of pet vending generally, as well as the introduction of the welfare offence for companion animals, provide the best protection yet for animals at pet fairs.

Bill Wiggin: Does the Minister foresee extra regulation for poultry, carp and pigeon sales, or will the present position continue?

Ben Bradshaw: There will be an exemption from the requirement for a licence for those events, because there is no evidence of which I am aware that there are any welfare problems with them. We do not want inadvertently to prevent an important and legitimate economic activity about which no concerns have been raised by animal welfare organisations.
	The proposals on pet fairs will be subject to wide consultation in due course.

Norman Baker: I find the Minister's comments odd. Clearly, there are potential welfare implications in relation to any live creature. The Government have legislation in place to deal with poultry kept as farm animals, for example, so why does the Minister believe there are no considerations regarding poultry sold at pet fairs?

Ben Bradshaw: That is not what I said. I have tried to emphasise throughout our discussions on the Bill, when we have argued about whether events should or should not be included, that every event will be subject to the welfare offence. We took the view that it was not sensible to include the widespread and common sales of koi carp, poultry and racing pigeons in the ban on pet fairs, which would have been the effect of not granting the exemption that I mentioned. We are not aware and nobody has made us aware of particular welfare problems at such sales which require them to be banned, and that is consistent with all our veterinary advice. Also, a ban would have a disproportionate effect on those businesses.
	I accept entirely what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said about the cat code. It is not the Government's intention to punish the owners of fat cats, although overfeeding an animal can be problematic [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) says from a sedentary position, it can be very cruel. When I first took on the portfolio from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I remember discussing overfeeding. I have known a number of pets which I think have suffered through overfeeding, but I am sure the right hon. Lady's cats are not among them.

Ann Widdecombe: I am sure the Minister will appreciate that one gets fat not just as a result of what one eats, but as a result of not exercising. Whereas some cats love to go out hunting, there are other cats, like mine, that prefer to curl up and sleep.

Ben Bradshaw: I take the right hon. Lady's point. I agree that in the debate on obesity, whether human or animal, we often ignore the role of physical exercise and concentrate too much on diet. I hope I have reassured her that we published draft codes in good faith in response to requests, and we probably went into far too much detail. She is right about that. The codes will be consulted on, and she and every cat lover in the country will be able to comment on them.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister said that we will have an opportunity to be consulted on the codes but he did not clarify whether Parliament will have a pre-legislative opportunity. It might be helpful if the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, or some other august body, were given a chance to become involved with the codes. Perhaps the cat code could have been slimmed down.

Ben Bradshaw: The Committee has many other burdens and demands on its time, but if it decides that it would like to do so, it is not my place to prevent it.
	On greyhounds, my noble Fried Lord Rooker gave a firm commitment on Report in another place that we will draft a regulation by 2008. The matter has rightly been given higher priority following concerns expressed in the press about abusealthough we must be careful what we say because it is currently sub judice. I look forward to the report from the all-party group on animal welfare, which is conducting an inquiry into the welfare of greyhounds. We are still keen on self-regulation if possible, but only if all concerned can be satisfied that open and auditable self-regulation is possible. When I meet representatives of the greyhound industry tomorrow, I will ask them to deliver, as a minimum, four key points. We believe that the National Greyhound Racing Club should have a new name, should appoint more stipendiary stewards, and should have in place, or expect to have in the near future, UK service accreditation; and that the British Greyhound Racing Board should announce a significant increase in welfare funding. Should those requirements not be achieved, we will look to appoint an outside regulator.
	On circuses, I reiterate what has been said here and in another place. The Government are committed to a ban on certain non-domesticated species currently used in circuses, with regulation coming into forceagain earlier than originally envisionedin 2008. I gave that commitment in the House on 8 March, and my noble Friend Lord Rooker repeated it in debate and in letters to peers. That decision will be based on scientific evidence. The circus working group, which has brought together the industry, welfare organisations and scientists involved with animal welfare, is up and running and giving advice. It will consider the scientific evidence and make recommendations to inform Ministers and to inform the debate. However, its role is to inform, not to prepare a binding list, and it is premature to draw conclusions as to the evidence that it will provide.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 18
	  
	Powers in relation to animals in distress

Lords amendment: No. 20.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23, 27 to 29, 33, 44 to 46, 51 and 68.

Ben Bradshaw: The amendments respond to concerns expressed in both Houses about the perceived absence of effective safeguards on the exercise of some of the powers in the Bill by introducing such safeguards.

Bill Wiggin: I think that it might be helpful to the House if Members do not pronounce the o in Leominster. For the purposes of this Bill, I will forgive them if they make it rhyme with hamster.
	I welcome the inclusion of measures to deal with appeals through the Crown Court. They provide an extra legal procedure to check on the actions of inspectors and constables who will save an owner time and expense when they wish to appeal. An inspector or constable will have the power to take a protected animal in distress into his possession, and a magistrates court can then proceed to make arrangements for the animal. The original drafting contained no provisions for the owner to appeal. In that respect, the principle behind amendment No. 27 is admirable. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a point about subsection (2), which states:
	Nothing may be done under an order under section 20(1) unless
	(a) the period for giving notice of appeal against the order has expired, and
	(b) if the order is the subject of an appeal, the appeal has been determined or withdrawn.
	Could not that be interpreted to mean the withholding of specified and important treatment that may be needed?

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot provide that clarification at this stage, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 20
	  
	Orders in relation to animals taken under section 18(5)

Lords amendment: No. 24.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26, 30 to 32, 36 to 43 and 47 to 50.

Ben Bradshaw: The amendments are of a minor and technical nature. They are designed to ensure consistency of wording and to clarify the treatment of expenses for the purposes of recovery.

Bill Wiggin: I am pleased with the inclusion of the provision whereby a person may appeal an order of a magistrates court and be reimbursed for expenses incurred, but I have a few questions for the Minister. Why are the Government using amendments Nos. 26 and 47 to change the term costs to expenses? What is the difference between the two? Why does amendment No. 48 change the word sum in clause 40 to the word expenses? On amendment No. 31, what is the reasoning behind changing the term pay a sum representing in clause 32 to the term reimburse? Why do amendments Nos. 32 and 40 remove the enforcement of the reimbursement away from one imposed on conviction?

Ben Bradshaw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him on those matters.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 33
	  
	Disqualification

Lords amendment: No. 34.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35, 54, 55 and 58.

Ben Bradshaw: The amendments are necessary in order to apply the same powers to breaches of disqualification orders made under old or new legislation. The group includes four minor amendments that were necessary in order to correct references contained in the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Minister clarify whether someone who has been cruel and is disqualified from keeping one species can be disqualified from keeping others? It would be absurd if someone who had been barred from keeping dogs still had other animals in their possession and care. I was particularly worried by the case highlighted in the media over the summer involving a farmer who was put in prison, leaving his herd of cattle to die slowly of starvation. Obviously, cattle are farm animals, but the principle is the same.

Ben Bradshaw: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks and also tell him that he is right in his implication that the motivation for these amendments was indeed the case that arose in the summer, which many people found extremely distressing. They were also frustrated that the Government could take no action, and we want to ensure that we can take action even if someone could have been disqualified under the old legislation and not just under the new provisions.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 64
	  
	Extent

Lords amendment: No. 56.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 57, 67, 69 and 70.

Ben Bradshaw: These are minor amendments that correct the relevant references to other provisions as a result of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 recently coming into force and repealing the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.

Bill Wiggin: This seems to clarify the issues of devolution. Will the Minister tell us what effort the devolved Administrations are putting into drawing up their own welfare codes, and whether their codes will simply be improved versions of our own? Of course they might run things differentlythat is the nature of devolutionbut on issues such as circus animals, for example, it would be strange if an animal could be kept and allowed to perform in one part of the UK but not in another. Obviously, we hope that the codes will be based on science rather than on local sentiment. If the Welsh Assembly draws up a better welfare code than ours in England, I hope that we will be nimble enough to ensure that we reap the benefits, just as the Assembly will have done from the initial work that DEFRA is putting in.

Ben Bradshaw: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman where the Scottish Executive are on drawing up the welfare codes, as this is a devolved matter

Ann Widdecombe: rose

Ben Bradshaw: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will be able to help me.

Ann Widdecombe: I thought perhaps that if the Minister gave way to me, his brain might catch up with himand it has.

Ben Bradshaw: Unfortunately, I have been given the wrong advice.
	As this is a devolved issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) will forgive me for not being up to speed with the devolved Administrations on the matter. However, I take his point. Consistency within the devolutionary settlement would seem to make sense. We will try hard to ensure that the various codes and regulations are consistent [ Interruption.] Ah! I have just been advised that the devolved Administrations are involved in our working groups, so I should be surprised if they did not come up with provisions that were pretty similar to ours. However, on tail docking, for example, they still seem intent on coming up with something quite different, which I think will probably cause them all sorts of problemsbut there we go.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 57 and 58 agreed to.

Schedule 2
	  
	Powers of entry, inspection and search: supplementary

Lords amendment: No. 59

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 66.

Ben Bradshaw: These are technical amendments to ensure consistency with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Bill Wiggin: Under Lords amendment No. 64, a warrant may authorise persons to accompany an inspector. Will the Minister clarify whether the warrant will have to specify the names of such people? Will he also clarify whether a person accompanying an inspector will need to identify himself, as the inspector will have to do under sub-paragraph 6(a)? As I understand it, inspectors will have to go through certain processes to get a warrant, and that is right and welcome. However, they will be able to take people with them. I am probing to find out whether those people will be subject to the same rigours as the inspectors, or whether there is the potential for them simply to be there without having gone through that process? Some people are frightened about the implications of these measures. They are frightened that people who are not authorised might turn up at their house accompanying an inspector. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the same rigours that will apply to inspectors will also apply to the people who accompany them.

Norman Baker: Lords amendment No. 66 deals with:
	Functions in connection with entry under section 19.
	It sets out powers including the power to
	inspect an animal found on the premises,
	the power to
	remove a carcass
	and the power to
	take a photograph of anything on the premises.
	However, I do not see a power for anyone executing a warrant to remove an animal thought to be in need of urgent treatment. I assume that that is not covered by the power to inspect an animal found on the premises. There should be a facility to remove an animal for further treatment. Perhaps that is covered elsewhere in the Bill and I have missed it, but it is certainly not included in this amendment. I would be grateful for the Minister's comment on this question.
	In Lords amendment No. 64, sub-paragraph (3) states:
	An application for a warrant shall be made without notice.
	Perhaps that is just traditional drafting, but I would have thought that the words may be made without notice would be more appropriate. Otherwise, if notice were given by accident, the warrant might not be granted. That would be rather peculiar. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point as well.

Ben Bradshaw: With leave of the House, I should like to respond first to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I am afraid that I cannot confirm whether a person will need to be named in the circumstances that he outlined. However, under paragraph 3, the warrant holder will have to be named. If I can clarify the matter further by writing to the hon. Gentleman after the debate, I will endeavour to do so.
	In response to the question by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about Lords amendment No. 66, I think that the provision looks more significant than it actually is. The measure is purely to ensure consistent drafting. It will give inspectors who enter premises in an emergency the powers of search and seizure, but it does not make substantive changes. It will serve two purposes. The first is to ensure that, when an inspector enters premises to search for an animal in distress, he has the power to inspect the animal when he finds it. This is a necessary prerequisite to exercising all the other emergency powers in clause 18, including the power of removal to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
	The second purpose is to give inspectors limited powers to gather evidence. As drafted, the powers to remove carcases and to take photographs are limited to occasions on which the inspector has entered either under warrant under clause 22, which is now clause 23, or to conduct a routine inspection under clauses 25 to 28, which are now clauses 26 to 29. We recognise that, if an inspector has already entered premises using his clause 19 powers, to have to leave and obtain a warrant under clause 22 and return would be impractical and a waste of resources as well as giving rise to the risk of evidence being destroyed. The Lords amendments are intended to ensure that the inspector can exercise limited evidence-gathering powers, even though he has entered the premises primarily for the purpose of alleviating an animal's suffering.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Police and Justice Bill

Lords message considered.

Clause 15
	  
	Conditional cautions; types of condition

Lords amendment: No. 5B.

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5C to 5H and the Government motion to agree thereto.

Mike O'Brien: We have listened carefully, during the course of debates, to the concerns raised in this House and in the other place about the proposed extension of the conditional cautioning to include punitive conditions. Those concerns centred on the discretion that would be available to prosecutors, particularly with respect to financial penalties. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place to deal with that.
	The amendments achieve four objectives. First, they reduce the maximum amount of any required financial penalty from 500 to 250. Secondly, they provide that the financial penalties can be used only in respect of a set of offences specified in secondary legislation. Thirdly, they require that secondary legislation must specify in relation to each offence the maximum penalty for that offence or group of offences. The prosecutor would have some discretion to set a lower financial penalty than would otherwise be attracted by the offence in questionfor example, to take account of the offender's ability to pay. There will therefore be a maximum for that particular offence according to the prosecutor's judgment about offender's being able to pay. Finally, the amendments make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure any proposed changes to the maximum hoursset at 20 in the Billthat an offender can be required to attend at a specified place, and to the maximum financial penalty of 250.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien: Before I do so, may I deal with another matter? On 24 October, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked me whether a person could get a conditional caution for burglary. I said that we were essentially looking at petty offences and that it would not be our intention for burglary, especially residential burglary, to be included. That is indeed the case and we do not intend to include commercial burglary either. That remains true, but my officials reminded me this morning that breaking into a garden or allotment shed might, depending on the seriousness of the offence, result in a conditional caution. We noted cases in the pilots where a couple of people were seen walking down a road after removing a bicycle from a shed, breaking a lock in the process. They were arrested and dealt with through a conditional caution, one of the conditions being to compensate the shed's owner for the cost of the lock. The owner accepted that and was pleased to receive the compensation. The defendants obviously accepted the conditional caution, too. I just wanted to put that on the record before giving way

Douglas Hogg: I am grateful for that clarification, but my question is about a related but different matter. The Solicitor-General mentioned affirmative resolutions, but may I ask him whether the affirmative or negative resolution procedure applies to the designation of offences referred to in amendment No. 5E(1)?

Mike O'Brien: That would be dealt with through the negative procedure. The affirmative resolution would apply to any proposal to increase the maximum hours or the maximum penalty of 250. Negative resolution procedure applies to other matters.
	In short, the amendments limit the maximum financial penalty that can be required through the scheme and provide increased parliamentary oversight of key aspects of it. They would nevertheless extend the usefulness of the scheme by enabling it to apply in low-level cases that fall outside its current remit. I commend the amendments to the House.

Edward Garnier: It seems to us that an important principle is at stake here that Parliament should upholdthat the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute and our courts, whether magistrates courts or Crown courts, should try a case on evidence, convict or acquit and sentence where appropriate. Our courts should not prosecute and our police and prosecutors should not sentence. Conditional cautions breach that principle, since they give the power of sentencing to agencies other than the courts. I want to see justice in the court room not at the cash point, and I want the separation between the police, the prosecution and the courts maintained.
	The analogy made previously between the penal aspects of a conditional caution and a fixed penalty notice is not strictly accurate, but it will, for now at least, have to do. I accept that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good, and that the concession on conditional cautions made by the Government in the other place has to some extent mitigated the most offensive elements of the scheme. I congratulate my noble Friends on their achievementand, indeed, the Government on having the good sense to agree to a compromise. I am content, if not deliriously happy, to accede to the Government's motion.

Lynne Featherstone: Although the Government tabled some amendments in the other place to address some of the concerns of Opposition Members, we remain concerned that the proposals herald a shift in British justice, with the prosecution effectively setting the sentence. Another concern is that, under these proposals, criminals may be able to afford to buy their way out of a criminal conviction. The maximum fine has been lowered, which we welcome, but the principle remains.
	In passing, I note a comment by Lord Goldsmith in the other place about the efficacy of the pilot schemes. He said:
	There has not been enough time to reach any conclusions on the reoffending rate, but the scheme has been operating in parts of the country sufficiently to know that it is well worthwhileI have had that directly from those operating it, who have also reported to me what the victims involved have said.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 129-30.]
	That evidence is hardly convincing enough to persuade that the good done is so compelling in benefiting the public interest truly to win the argument. It could be argued that the exact opposite is the truth. Because a fine can be paidpossibly without further adofor what amounts to a criminal conviction with no criminal record being held, the public may be at greater risk. There will be no criminal record, yet the person has admitted guilt for a criminal offence.
	I also remain concerned about the switch from the original purpose of a conditional caution, which was rehabilitation. Are we changing behaviour? That is the all-important factor. Surely we would all regard the change of behaviour as the real measure of success, and the pay-and-go policy will not change behaviour. However, Lord Goldsmith acknowledged that the Bill might not be drafted perfectly in that it could be interpreted as imposing a fine without additional conditions pertaining to rehabilitation or reparation. He inferred that that was not the intention and stated:
	If that is noble Lords' only concern, we may be able to give further thought to that.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 133.]
	I encourage the Government to do so because, without that clarification, our concerns remain that they may be creating a two-tier system of justiceone for the rich and one for the poor.
	The Government are seeking to speed up the justice system for low-level crimes and we support that intention. Our concerns and criticisms have been directed to ensuring that changes made to our criminal justice system achieve the right result, rather than create unintended consequences and problems in dealing with what is a real issue for people throughout the country: dealing with antisocial behaviour speedily through the criminal justice system. The guiding light in all that we do must remain just thatensuring that our streets are safer and making the reoffending rate the measure of our success. Although it is clear to me that we shall not persuade the Government of our remaining arguments, I welcome the changes that they have made and I am glad to have the opportunity to put those concerns on record.
	I encourage the Government to measure the efficacy of the new proposals as they pass into law. We need to monitor closely the success or otherwise of the new powers. That means measuring the rate of reoffending. We need to understand what punishments are given alongside fines and conditional cautionsif fines alone are not givenand the range of conditional cautions. Without knowing that, we will not understand the impact on the reoffending rate.
	We need to understand who chooses a conditional caution and whether those who refuse have to opt for court because they cannot afford the fine. It is important to measure those aspects. Only with such monitoring can we begin to understand whether the changes bring success. Success means safer streets and changed behaviour, not ticked boxes.

Douglas Hogg: I want to direct hon. Members' attention to a small point that arises in amendment 5E. Subsection (1) would provide that a financial penalty may be attached to a conditional caution for any offence that the Secretary of State prescribes by designation. The Solicitor-General has been kind enough to confirm that the designation will happen through the negative, not the affirmative, resolution procedure. That means that, through negative resolution procedure, the Secretary of State can put into a statutory instrument any offence that he may wish to designate. The effect is that the Government can drive up the gravity of the offences that the financial penalty covers.
	The Solicitor-General fairly said that he did not wish domestic burglary to be included in the designated category of offence. However, I believe that he would concede that his successors could include domestic burglary or, indeed, grievous bodily harm, if they were so minded, in the designated class of offence to which the financial penalty attaches. They could do that by the negative procedure.
	Anyone who is familiar with the procedures of the House knows that the statutory instrument procedure is imperfect because the House either accepts or rejects a statutory instrument in its entirety. I can contemplate a statutory instrument that includes several offences, some that hon. Members would not wish to be included in the designated category and others that they would be content to welcome into it. However, we could not pick and choose because of the procedure.
	In a spirit of compromise, I ask the Solicitor-General to publish a draft of the statutory instrument before it is formally laid so that hon. Members and, indeed, anyone who dissents from the proposition that one specific offence should be included in the draft statutory instrument, could object at that early stage rather than being obliged to try to reject the whole list by a negative prayer. I do not like the procedure, but if we must have it, an undertaking to proceed in the way that I suggest would go some way towards dealing with the objections that I have always had to the overall procedure.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for the way in which he set out his views. There has been much discussion of the matter. I realise that he and the Liberal Democrats have concerns about what they perceive to be the principle that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are involved in the investigation and take forward a prosecution but that it is for the courts to dispose of cases. However, we have said here and in another place that procurator fiscal fines have existed for some time in Scotland and that cautions have also been used. They have a long history in this country and there are also fixed penalty notices. I do not want to rehearse those arguments, save to say that I do not accept that the principle exists in the way that he assumes that it does. I do not therefore believe that we are breaking a great principle. We are proposing a sensible way in which to deal with cases that takes better account of victims' concerns so that their cases are tackled more effectively and quickly, and, I hope, with compensation paid more quickly.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) set out a rather illiberal approach. She appeared to object strongly to cautions, speaking of them as pay and go or buying one's way out of criminal convictions. She appeared to insist on people having criminal convictions instead. I suspect that, on reflection, the operation of the conditional caution will cause a different view to emerge from the Liberal Democrats.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about the need to re-examine the way in which we introduce the list of offences that might be suitable for conditional cautions, and suggested that it might be possible to publish a draft at an early stage. We propose to consult about the list of offences and I hope that that will give him and others the opportunity to examine the offences and have a broader discussion about what should be included before we lay the negative resolution. If there are subsequent objections, it will be up to the Opposition to pray against it in the normal way under the negative resolution procedure.
	We have been through a process whereby the Government have set out their views, we have listened to the debate, tabled amendments in another place and listened to the comments made there. It is now broadly accepted that we have gone through the proper process that Parliament goes through in such circumstances and reached a view that we can all accept. Perhaps, in future, we will wish to reconsider the matter and go further. We said that we would like the limit for the financial penalty to be higher. We wanted a figure of 500 but accepted 250 to take account of Opposition views.
	There is room for further discussion but I hope that it can be conducted in the context of ascertaining how the ideas work in practice. Perhaps we can then examine some of suggestions of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the results of some of the pilots and the operation of conditional cautions.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 5C to 5H agreed to.
	After Clause 46
	 Lords Reason: 36B.

John Reid: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendment, Lords amendments 81B, 82B, 83B, 84B, the Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendments.

John Reid: The House has spent much time discussing the Bill and the amendments. The Government do not accept the Opposition amendments, for reasons that I shall state as succinctly as possible. First, they are outside the scope of the treaty, and would require us to renegotiate it.
	Secondly, in strictly legal terms, were the amendments to succeed, we would have to renegotiate some 20 other bilateral treaties. I heard a shout from the Conservative Front Bench of Good thing to the first [Interruption.] Apparently, the shout came from the Bench behind. I wonder if Opposition Members think that renegotiating the other 20 treaties would also be a good thing.
	Thirdly, the amendments are simply unnecessary. The Extradition Act 2003 already contains safeguards, including the precedence of any UK prosecution.
	Fourthly, we have been prepared to listen to Members' concerns and to move in their direction when we felt that the suggestions improved the treaty and the Bill. For example, on jurisdiction, my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General is already developing with his US counterpart, with whom he has spokenand with whom I have spoken twice since the matter was last discussed in the Houseguidance to cover the forum issue. We hope that that will be completed in the next three to four weeks. Partly as a result of that willingness to address and clarify such issues, the majority in favour of the amendments in the other place fell from 102 and 83 to 37 and 33 the last time around. I hope that that process continues, as we have been prepared to move in that direction.

David Heath: One of the Home Secretary's principal grounds for rejecting the amendments from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in another place was that they were incompatible with the treaty. Will he confirm that his proposed amendments in lieu, which he wants the House to accept, are entirely compatible with the treaty, both in their present and future effect, if implemented?

John Reid: Yes, I can. It might help Members on both sides of the House if I were to explain the amendments. We have tabled the amendments in their proposed form simply to ensure that the Bill does not fall. As a technical measure to comply with the conventions of both Houses, we have inserted a so-called sunrise provision, which ensures that the amendments never see the light of day. Under the amendments, both Houses would need to pass a resolution before the amendments could come into force. The Government are not, of course, obliged to bring forward such a resolution, and have no intention of doing so. Consequently, the Government's amendments have no practical effect in lying outwith the treaty. They do, however, enable us to cope with the conventions of both Houses.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: As the Home Secretary knows, I would not support the Lords amendment on designation, as I said when the House last considered it. But will he spell out to me precisely which part of the treatyfor example, but only for example, the American treatyis offended or contradicted by the amendment on forum? I confess that I really cannot see which part that is.

John Reid: My hon. and learned Friend, who has probably studied these matters longer and in more depth than most Members of the House, will recognise that, as far as I am aware, forum does not appear in the treaty at all. If we therefore impose a forum requirement on the treaty, that will be outside the existing treaty. That is not to say that it will never be acceptable to the United States or anyone else, but, in strict legal terms, it would require a renegotiation of the treaty. As I said, it would require a renegotiation not just with the United States, but with approximately 20 other countries. I would be happy to list the countries involved, if Opposition Members would like me to do so.
	For those four reasons, it would be wise to accept the current situation, without trying to impose the Lords amendments. I therefore commend the Government amendments.
	A fifth reason has not featured as much as it might have done, due to our disputation over important legal pointsthe human and practical element of our deliberation. The Opposition amendments could result in serious offenders and suspected offenders escaping justice. I want to concentrate on that fundamental point, as, however we approach the matter, I want to make sure that we understand the implications were the treaty blocked, which would be the effect of the Opposition amendments. Opposition Members will have to show the country where they stand on the issue that is surely at the heart of the debateensuring that victims of crime get the justice that they deserve.

Rob Marris: I am grateful for the Government's movement on the issue. I understand what my right hon. Friend said, I think, about certain amendments being devices. I have two questions about the wording of the Government amendments. First, will he explain the circumstances in which the powers contained in subsection (6) of the first amendment (a), on page 4148 of our amendment paper, would be used? Secondly, what does the word significant, which appears twice on page 4149, mean in the second amendment (a) on forum?

John Reid: For technical reasons of complying with the conventions of both Houses, we have incorporated the Opposition amendments, but we have inserted sunrise clauses, which ensure that they do not take effect unless certain things happen. I have assured the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that those things will not happen, because we have no intention of moving the resolution or failing to ratify the treaty. I can understand the desire to discuss the technicalities of those resolutions, but the important point is that we would not give effect to them, as we would not pass such resolutions or fail to ratify within the 12 months specified. Therefore, we can comply with the conventions of both Houses while ultimately defeating the Opposition amendments, which would, in effect, block the treaty.

Douglas Hogg: The Government have a forum amendment on the amendment paper, so surely the Home Secretary concedes that the proposition included in the forum amendment is in principle desirable. Therefore, why is he saying that something that is in principle desirable is something that he will not do?

John Reid: If we ever had any intention of giving effect to such an amendment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument would bear weight. I made it plain at the beginning of my contribution, however, that we had no intention of doing so, precisely because we do not accept the forum amendment in principle or in practice. Therefore, we will not move the resolutions to give effect to it.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose

John Reid: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to make some progress, I was talking about the victims of crime. Justice for victims should be at the heart of our consideration. As I noted the last time we discussed the matter, the word victims was rarely if ever used in any of the contributions from those on the Opposition Front Bench. That observation is not in any way to minimise their arguments, but merely to point out a sin of omission, as those who should surely be at the centre of all our deliberations when discussing the general principles of justice are those who suffer most when injustice occurs.
	The other issues have been addressed. The United States has consented to the treaty, as we asked it to following the urging of those in the other place who share party membership with the Opposition spokesmen. We dispatched a Minister to Washington to urge action on the United States, on the basis of arguments deployed in this House that it was presenting an insuperable obstacle to ratification and to the Bill's passage. We went to the United States, and cajoledand persuadedthe Senate to ratify. That has now been dealt with, and the forum arrangements have been clarified. As I have said, the Attorney-General is having discussions with his United States counterpart. Given all those developments, the argument about the practical effects on the implementation of justice, and on the victims themselves, is one from which the Opposition can no longer hide.
	If the Conservative amendments were upheld, they would make ratification of a new extradition treaty with the United States impossible. Opponents of the Government would effectively prevent suspected serious criminals from being brought to justice. Having addressed all the issues that they have raised so far, I believe that that would be an intolerable position to present to the people of this country.

Richard Shepherd: It is nonsense to suggest that we are not in a position to extradite people just because we have changed the basis of the treaty. There is an existing law on extradition, which would make it possible to proceed.

John Reid: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some examples of people whom we cannot extradite under the present arrangements. There are a number of paedophiles, for instance. One in particular has been long sought by the authorities in this country, and is now sheltering in the United States behind the technicality that because his alleged sexual attacks on children happened a long time ago he cannot be extradited. Does that serve the purpose of justice?
	I can give another example. A doctor fled to the United States using the same loophole to escape prosecution in respect of the death of a child. Fraudsters, one of whom is wanted for 250 crimes, are also using that get-out-of-jail card. Extradition is prevented in all those cases, and would continue to be prevented if the treaty did not become effective.
	I do not believe that any of those cases serve justice, and of course none of them represents justice from the point of view of the victims. Unless the treaty is ratified, justice in those cases and some others cannot and will not happen. Once the new treaty is in place, that loophole will be closed. I do not say that no one can be extradited from the United States at present, but in a number of cases we cannot extradite under the existing arrangements, but will be able to do so under the arrangements I have described.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary give way?

John Reid: I will give way to my hon. and learned Friend once more.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I should like him to help meand he knows that this is friendly fire.
	I am very concerned about the forum issue, and the serious social and legal problems that I envisage if we do not pass the amendment. The Home Secretary says that forum is not in the treaty, and that is why it is offensive to the treaty. He is rightforum is not in the treaty, but it is in the law, and in the Act. The law and the Act provide that if we choose to prosecute someone, our forum will take precedence. How does that not offend the Act, as opposed to saying that if we choose not to prosecute someone we must look at the overall picture before we extradite? I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I do not follow his argument.

John Reid: Let me try to explain, in the spirit of fraternity that always underpins our discussions. I speak without the expertise that my hon. and learned Friend brings to these legal mattersand I mean that truthfully.
	My understanding is that forum is not part of the treaty, although it is mentioned in the Act. That means that if we wish to establish it in the treaty, although it may be acceptable to the other party to the treatythat will depend on what we suggestit will nevertheless require a renegotiation of the treaty. That is self-evident. I am not saying that it is not possible, but it will mean a renegotiation, and if it means a renegotiation with the United States, it will also mean a renegotiation of the same forum in the case of 20 other bilateral treaties. We will be prevented not just from ratifying this treaty, but from continuing without renegotiation of those other treaties. I do not consider it acceptable to block the treaty in that manner.
	That is not to say, howeverthis might help my hon. and learned Friendthat we could not, outside the treaty, attempt to achieve some guidance on the procedures that we might use in an informal, or less formal than treaty, manner in relation to such an important subject. That is why I have spoken in general terms to the United States Attorney General twice in the past week, and why my noble Friend the Attorney-General has spoken to him with a view to developing guidance on this subject.
	I will not go into all the safeguards that already exist in relation to forum. At present, if there is a case to be held in this country it will take precedence over any request for extradition from the United States.
	I am answering my hon. and learned Friend's question at some length, because he clearly considers the issue important: so do I, so does the United States Attorney General and so does our Attorney-General. We are not saying that we will not deal with it, but I am asking for us to be able to deal with it outside the treaty, because we can then secure the benefits of the treaty as well as the benefits of clarification on guidance. I hope that that goes some way towards explaining the important issue that my hon. and learned Friend has raised.

John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the legal status that that guidance would have?

John Reid: It would not have the legal status of legislation or of part of the treaty. I fully accept that. However, it constitutes a move towards trying to address the problems that interest and worry my hon. Friend. I would guessI was going to mention this laterthat we will be able to say something about the arrangements in three or four weeks' time. I cannot give my hon. Friend the details tonight, but I can tell him that we regard the issue as important, and that we are already addressing it.
	Let me now explain the other benefits of the new treaty, apart from those relating to people who are currently hiding from justice. First, let me draw a clear line. Either we have the treaty or we do not, and I do not believe that justice will be served if we do not.
	The new treaty will define extraditable offences not by a fixed list of crimes, but by a sentence threshold. That has the advantages of flexibility and dynamism to take account of changing circumstances. We are currently hampered by our inability to chase a criminal for a crime not thought of in 1972. We want to ensure that future-proofing is written into the treaty, making it more effective over a period than a treaty listing extraditable offences by name rather than according to a threshold of seriousness.
	The treaty will also allow the extradition of someone who is already serving a prison sentence. For example, at present a murderer serving a whole life sentence in America is highly unlikely ever to be brought to justice for other crimes that he may have committed here. That means that we are selling some British victims of crime short, because they will never see their attackers in the dock. The new treaty will resolve the problem.

Daniel Kawczynski: Would not the UK victims of a criminal serving a whole-life sentence in the United States be delighted that he would more than likely spend the rest of his life behind bars? They would prefer that to the English system under which, having been given a ludicrously lenient sentence, the criminal would be let out less than halfway through, wearing some sort of a tag and free to commit further offences.

John Reid: I take it that the hon. Gentleman objects to the mandatory revision of sentences, release at given points, mandatory reductions in sentences for pleading guilty and so on. I congratulate him on being several months behind me in saying so publicly, and we are this week issuing a consultation on sentencing [Interruption.] I will proceed, if the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) can calm down a little.
	Under the new treaty, provided all the other extradition safeguards are observed, law enforcement agencies will be able to extend the charge sheet against the suspect even if the subsequent charges were not on the original extradition warrant. Obviously, that will be helpful in ensuring that justice is fully served. I fail to see how the House could disagree with any of these measures, as they are entirely sensible. They have the sole purpose of serving justice, and ensuring justice for victims.
	I mentioned the amendments that we have tabled and why they have been tabled in that form. I am well aware that we have a limited time

Douglas Hogg: Whose fault is that?

John Reid: I will conclude my remarks, if hon. Members will allow me to do so without interruption.
	I have tried to set out the benefits of the treaty and why allowing the Opposition's amendments to stand would be disastrous for British victims of crime in practical terms. During the weeks and months of discussion, we have tried to address many of the concerns that have been raised, especially the one about forum, which has been raised again tonight. We have tried to do that in a way commensurate with maintaining this treaty, the non-ratification of which was the main objection raised by Opposition Members for weeks and weeks. It is beyond me how they can now take a position that would further delay that ratification.
	We have tried to address the concerns in a way that did not further delay the ratification of the treaty. We have moved on issues of concern. I believe that we can say that we have worked hard to speed up ratification in the US. That has been achieved despite the scepticism when Baroness Scotland set off. I hardly think that this is the time to renege on the deal, having asked others to ratify it. The old saying advises being careful of what one asks for, because sometimes one gets it. In this case, the Opposition, here and in the other place, demanded loudly that we get something, and we got it. Now they are upset because we have shot their fox, if I may use that expression after our earlier debate on animal welfare.
	It is now time to assert this Chamber's independence and prerogative, and our democratic right over the other place. That is not an irrelevant consideration, whatever differences we have between us. If we are to assert our sovereignty in this place, now is the time to do so.
	I am clear where the Government stand. We stand for justice and the victims of crime, not with the criminals. Now we will find out where the Opposition stand.

Edward Garnier: The Home Secretary began his speech with some unusual, but none the less disarming, honesty when he told us that the amendments that he had tabled in lieu, both in relation to designation of the US and to forum, were utterly meaningless. He does not mean a word of them. They are merely devices. I hope that the House will judge the Home Secretary and his arguments through that filter. We are not here to be abused in that way. We are not here to allow the Executive to ride roughshod over the rights of the House of Commons, still less to ignore the advice of the other place.
	I found the Home Secretary's speech breathtaking in its use of Aunt Sallies that have nothing to do with the guts of the treaty or the Bill. He produced a load of utterly irrelevant arguments that had nothing to do with anything other than Labour party propaganda. It was also a nasty and sinister speechunsurprisinglyunderneath which lay an invidious threat that had nothing to do with the duties of Members of Parliament. The Home Secretary said that unless Members did as he advised and kowtowed to the Executive, and unless they agreed to what the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did secretly in March 2003, they would be allowing paedophiles to go free. I have heard some revolting arguments in my time, but that just about takes the biscuit

Ian Cawsey: It is true.

Edward Garnier: It is not true, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, he should have the guts to stand up and defend his position.

Ian Cawsey: I am not allowed to.

Edward Garnier: No, and that is just as well.
	Let us analyse what the Government seek to persuade us to agree. They say that the US should be designated as a jurisdiction that does not require a prima facie case to be made unless certain things happen within certain periods. We have just heard from the right hon. and very cynical Gentleman that those things will never happen. So the amendment on designation is cynical, meaningless and hollow.
	Let us concentrate on the more important amendment which deals with forum. The issue of forum is part of the extradition arrangements that exist between the US and several other jurisdictions, not least Ireland, Denmark and some of the Baltic states. Those countries, I suggest, are somewhat less powerful than the UK, or should be, when it comes to exerting influence on the US. The treaty is not of great military significance. It does not decide whether the west will fall or the east succeed. It is a matter of administration to do with the arrangements by which each jurisdiction permits extradition. Why the Government thought it appropriate to continue to defend the treaty come hell or high water, with this cynical collection of amendments in lieu, when it has so many fundamental flaws, defies logic and explanation.
	The Home Secretary sought to rehearse the letter that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) over the weekend, which she saw fit to publish in the newspapers today. Its purport was that unless we do what the Government askor demandwe will be letting paedophiles, murderers and other criminals off scot-free. However, the Government failed to remind the House that the treaty deals with what are called the specialty defences. So those accused of paedophilia in the US many years ago lose the defence of the statute of limitations in respect of those offences. If the Secretary of State thinks that he can persuade those of us who have actually thought about this matter for more than a few seconds that to accept the forum provision and give the judges a discretion to consider whether there is a connection between the crime, the criminal, the evidence and the case as a whole means that in return the US Government will withdraw the specialty reliefs, he demonstrates more about his own negotiating powers than anything else. I invite the House to accept that the Home Secretary, and the Under-Secretary in her letter, have made ridiculous and desperate assertions. They have no knowledge of the details of the cases on which they seek to rely and, in any event, if a prima facie or reasonable cause case can be made, under the old or new treaty, it is highly unlikely that the US would refuse to extradite.

Rob Marris: If the treaty be lost and we go back to the status quo ante, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what the position would be regarding forum, particularly in relation to guidance in contradistinction to a legislated position? Tonight, the Home Secretary promised guidance. Is not that what we had under the status quo ante?

Edward Garnier: First, given the nature of the Home Secretary's speech, I am not sure that his promises are worth waiting for and, secondly, the implied assertion that the introduction of the forum question would destroy the treaty is false. If it were true, the Secretary of State would not have introduced his forum amendment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it; either he accepts that the forum argument is worthy of consideration or he does not. He has told us that of course the collection of amendments is utterly bogus andI suggestintellectually dishonest. I am afraid that he will be taken at his word: by the nature of his amendments, he has assumed that forum should be included, and we agree. He has followed our suggestion and I am very happy with that. The only point on which we differ is implementation and its timing.
	The Home Secretary has disarmingly honestly, but cynically, admitted that he has absolutely no intention of complying with his implementation timetable, so I do not see why we should allow him to get away with one thing and not the other; he must accept

Ronnie Campbell: You've lost me.

Edward Garnier: I do not think I ever had the hon. Gentleman.
	We do not need to allow the Home Secretary to have the benefits without the burdens.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: No, I shall not give way. The Home Secretary spoke for 25 minutes in a 45-minute debate and other Members want to speak [Interruption.] There is no point in the Home Secretary mumbling away; he sauntered into our debate the other day and he has done so again today. The House takes the issue rather more seriously than he does. The House takes justice and fairness rather more seriously than he does and it will not be persuaded by the ridiculous and utterly desperate arguments put by him in today's debate, and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North in her letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, that if we do something we shall destroy the whole relationship between us and the United States. That is a feeble and ridiculous argument, and I urge the House to resist it and the Home Secretary's rather tiresome blandishments.

David Heath: Even in the brief time available for the rest of the debate, I want to welcome the fact that the Home Secretary came to the House this evening to give us the benefit of his views. However, I hoped that he would use the opportunity, first, to apologise for the fact that his predecessor had concluded such a hopelessly unequal Bill. Secondly, I hoped he would say that he recognised the deficiencies of the treaty but that there was scope for renegotiation, which he was prepare to undertake, and that he would then come back to the House with a greatly improved treaty. Thirdly, I hoped he would say that he recognised the deficiencies in the House's protocols for dealing with ratification of treaties and that he would hold talks with the Leader of the House to ensure that we had a better way of looking at treaties in future so that such things would not occur again.
	Sadly, we have heard none of those things from the Home Secretary, which is hardly surprising, because it was well trailed in advance that today was the day when he would lead an assault on the Tories for being soft on crime. If that is what he chooses to do, we have no means of stopping him in the context of this important consideration of Lords amendmentsbut if his way of exercising his choice is to present in lieu of the Lords amendments words that he admits are entirely bogus and have no effect, and to ask the House to conclude that that is a satisfactory response to those in another place who are trying desperately to improve the law of the land, he does a disservice to the House. Indeed, he holds the House and the other place in contempt, which is a most unfortunate state of affairs.
	As the House knows, we have always argued against the treaty because we believe that it contains fundamental inequalities. We have voted against it from the outset because we believe that it needs to be renegotiated. We have not called for its early ratification because we do not believe in ratifying a treaty based on such unequal terms, and we are no more satisfied with it now than we were in the first place.
	The Home Secretary has at least been prepared to consider forum, if not in his amendment at least in the assurances he gave the House, but assurances are not enough. We need a successful outcome to the negotiations, but they can be held only in an appropriate legislative framework, which is not provided by the words he urges the House to accept. Until he proposes an appropriate form of words, we can only resist his position.
	I want to allow some time for others to speak, so this is my last point: it is preposterous to suggest that those who argue against the treaty for sound legal and constitutional reasons do so to give succour to those who break the law and avoid due process in the United States or in this country. That is not the case and it is inappropriate to suggest it. If the Home Secretary's argument rests solely on the removal of the statute of limitations in the treaty, he needs much firmer grounds to argue his case in this place.

John Denham: The debate has revealed a surprising degree of ad-hocery in our extradition arrangements with a great many countries, not just with the United States of America. Perhaps the point of principle on which Members need to dwell before the vote is whether the treaty should be wrecked on the basis of a wider flaw in many of our extradition treaties, especially in relation to forum and what should be done when a case could be tried in one of two jurisdictions, or worse, when somebody is judged not to have a case to answer in this country but is still subject to extradition requestsnot only from the US but from many other countries.
	One of the things that we have achieved in the debate is the promise of guidance and, at least in relation to the United States, a clear set of criteria and a process whereby the decisions will be judged. I have to say that many of us would have preferred some judicial oversight of the process, but I have it in writing from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), and we have heard today from the Home Secretary, that to insert those clauses would mean that we made this country ridiculous in its conduct of international diplomacy and international agreements. We should not take that step this evening.
	There are many gains to be had from the treaty. The arguments about reciprocity that we discussed in previous debates do not carry the weight that Opposition Members gave them.

Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Denham: I am sorry, I have far too little time to give way.
	I hope that we shall learn from these proceedings that we need to give such treaties much greater scrutiny in the future. I hope that we shall hear some words from the Government, in the Chamber or outside, about how such issues might be approached in the future.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Given the time, I shall be very brief[Hon. Members: One minute.] There are two issues

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that on this occasion brevity becomes the hon. and learned Gentleman.
	 It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [24 October].
	 Question agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Government amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [24 October].

Schedule 14
	  
	Extradition

Lords amendments: Nos. 81 to 84.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendments and proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof. [John Reid.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendments disagreed to.
	 Government amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions 9,10,11 and 12.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

treasure

That the draft Code of Practice on the Treasure Act 1996 (Second Revision) England and Wales 2006, which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.

northern ireland

That the draft Electricity Consents (Planning) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th October, be approved.
	That the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th October, be approved.

dangerous drugs

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 12th October, be approved. [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 Question agreed to.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6)(Programme motions,)
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Road Safety Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th March 2006 (Road Safety Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mr. Cawsey.]

Road Safety Bill  [Lords]

Lords message considered.

Clause 2
	  
	Application of surplus income from safety camera enforcement

Commons amendment: No. 1

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendment No. 1 to which the Lords have disagreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Stephen Ladyman: Hon. Members will recall that during consideration of this Bill in another place, a clause was added in Committee that aims to allow safety camera partnerships to retain and use surplus fine income from speeding offences to fund other transport measures, including road safety. The clause was unequivocally overturned by the Commons in Committee, when I explained that new arrangements were being introduced for the integration and funding of safety cameras from 1 April 2007, resulting in local authorities receiving additional money for road safety through the local transport plan process; they would receive some 440 million over four years. That will replace the current netting-off arrangements, so there will no longer be surplus income as envisaged by the clause added in another place.
	The clause, however, was reinserted by the other place when the Commons amendments were considered last week. It is defective in a number of respects. For example, it refers to
	income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2).
	That is inaccurate, and it could extend to income from offences detected by police officers as well as by cameras. The clause also uses several undefined terms such as a safety camera scheme.
	The legislation is at a very late stage, and we are under an obligation to save a vital Bill. Given that their lordships are keen that the Government should have the power to make such regulations, we tabled amendment No. 1, which would be workable and is not technically defective, thus meeting their Lordships' wishes. In the event that the powers were used, that would be contingent on having a mechanism to ensure that the regulations neither created incentives for partnerships to drive up the level of fines to secure additional income nor penalised partnerships that succeed in improving compliance with speed limits, thus reducing the income from speed cameras, by allowing them less money for other road safety purposes. None the less, I reiterate our obligation to this important Bill, and I therefore urge the House to support the motion.

Owen Paterson: In recent years, there has been a spectacular increase in penalty notices. I received a reply to parliamentary question 95511 on 2 November that showed that offences detected by camera had increased from 288,600 in 1997 to 1,786,000 in 2004. There has been a commensurate increase in income. In 2000-01, seven partnerships received just over 10.3 million and spent just over 8.9 million, leaving a balance of 1.3 million for the Consolidated Fund. In 2003-04 receipts were 112.2 million and expenditure 91.8 million, leaving an astonishing 20.4 million for the Chancellor. Not only have receipts increased tenfold but the balance going to the Chancellor has increased from 13 per cent. to 18 per cent. of total receipts, so a substantial sum has not gone towards road safety.
	Tiny sums can have a dramatic impact on road safety. I cannot resist giving the House some information that I received from Shropshire at the weekend, where the installation by Shropshire county council of only 12,000-worth of interactive signs at Sandford bends, where there is a mediaeval bridge, has had spectacular results. In the three years prior to installation, there was an average of three recorded personal injury accidents a year. Since the signs were installed, however, there have been no such accidents at the location. The average cost per accident is 106,710 and, in addition, the cost of repairs to the bridge was 120,000 in 2002 and 40,000 in 2003 and again in 2004. Furthermore, queues, which were sometimes a mile long, have been avoided.
	I am very pleased that the Minister has come round to the idea of handing the money to local agencies, which can spend the sums on small schemes such as that which I have mentioned. This afternoon, I had a very constructive meeting with my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, who has done sterling work in the other place, and the Minister's counterpart in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham. He confirmed what the Minister said: that the intention is to reinstate clause 2, as the Government accept that they were defeated in the Lords, and that they intend to deliver the intended aims of the Opposition clause. We are pleased that the Government have made such a concession for, I think, the first time in respect of this Bill. However, it is ironicI cannot resist pointing this outthat this is the one clause to which they let us make an amendment, before they withdrew it.

David Kidney: I just want to say that the new arrangements announced by the Government for next April are clearly superior to the arrangements in the Lords' desire. They are superior because of the certainty about the money that local authorities will get; that will not be dependent on the speeding-fine income that they collect in their area. It is better for public perception that people do not have to be fined for speeding in order for local authorities to get the central grant from the Government. I see this arrangementwhich I hope will be approved in a few minutes by this place to satisfy the other placeas a supplement, so that in certain possible circumstances even more money can go to local authorities if there is a greater income from fines than people anticipated.

Greg Knight: Those of us who have been involved in the debate on these measures in Committee and subsequently are pleased to note that the Minister has become more good-natured as the debate has progressed. In fact, I suspect that if our consideration of the Bill could have stretched over two years, we might have persuaded him to accept more amendments.
	I think that the whole House will welcome his comment that he had no intention of driving up fine income in these provisions. But what ring-fencing will exist as a result of the Government amendment? Will it be the same as in the Lords' original amendment, namely
	to fund local transport facilities or related environmental improvements?
	Some of us would have concerns if the definition of related environmental improvements could include road closures. We hope that that is not the primary purpose of the amendment.

Stephen Ladyman: I am surprised that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) thinks that I have not been good-natured throughout our consideration of the Billbut we never see ourselves quite as others see us.

Greg Knight: I did not mean to accuse the Minister of having been bad-natured at any stage. What I said was that, as our debate progressed, he became progressively better-natured.

Stephen Ladyman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
	The key point is that none of us wants cameras to be deployed simply for the purpose of raising money and increasing income. In order to stop that happening it is key that if the powers that we have introduced in this amendment, which the Lords wanted us to introduce, were used, it would be necessary for some other mechanism to be used in conjunction with them. The Government do not believe that the powers are necessary because we have already achieved the objective that their lordships wanted in the first place by different means. What we have done is to end from 1 April next year the so-called netting-off arrangementsthe scheme whereby camera income could only be used for more cameras and any surplus went to the Treasury. We have said that the total sum of the fines which will go to the Treasury in futureapproximately 110 million a yearwill be paid back to the local authorities as road safety grants. Therefore, while the changes introduced by the Government are in place, it is correct that the money going back to the councils can be used only for road safety and measures relating to that.
	As the Treasury has agreed to that amount of money for four years, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is also absolutely right that what the Government have done is an improvement on what their lordships intended, because that income is guaranteedand there are signs that the fine income is starting to go down. However, the Treasury will carry on payingat this rate, for the next four yearsfor road safety improvements. Therefore, more of the sort of road safety improvements that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned will be able to take place than would be the case if we were to use the powers that we are accepting that their Lordships want us to put in the Bill.
	Nevertheless, their Lordships were keen for this power to be in the Bill because they felt that that was necessary. To make sure that we demonstrate compromise in our willingness to get this Bill through, we are prepared to correct their Lordships amendments, and to accept them. I hope that, on that basis, the House can support our amendment.
	 Commons amendment No.1 disagreed to.
	 Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof agreed to.

Clause 16
	  
	Retro-reflective markings

Commons amendment: No. 5

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That this House insists on Commons amendment No. 5, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees to amendments Nos. 5A and 5B proposed by the Lords.
	Perhaps this debate will be a little less good-natured than the last one. Use of retro-reflective tape is already permitted, and many heavy-vehicle operators have already voluntarily opted to fit it. We in this country are committed to making it mandatory, and we believe that the best mechanism for achieving that is to amend both European Commission and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe legislation. This route has been agreed internationally, and proceedings are now under way that will mandate it in both European and international law.
	We do not believe that it would make good sense to try to introduce regulations covering only UK-registered vehicles in the run-up to the more universal requirement to fit the tape. In addition, the legal basis for making such UK-specific regulations before tape fitment is mandated by EC and UNECE law is, at best, uncertain. If we were to introduce regulations by the end of 2007, I cannot be sure we would not be open to challenge, and possibly to infraction proceedings.
	Unilateral Italian requirements on this subject have been mentioned in previous debates.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: Let me make some progress, and than I shall give way.
	I have also received correspondence in the past day or two from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is in his place today, questioning statements that I have made previously about UK and other objections to the Italian regulations. Judging by the copy letters enclosed with that correspondence, there does appear to be some confusion over that. However, I can confirm that I have a copy of a letter from the secretary-general of the Commission to the Italians, advising them, among other things, of their obligation to include a mutual recognition clause relating to other member states or European Free Trade Association countries signatory to the European economic area agreement and suggesting that they reconsider their legislation. That seemed to me to be a likely precursor to infraction proceedings, although I gather that no action has, as yet, been taken.
	In addition, I can confirm that the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry website lists the Commission, Germany, France and the UK as all having commented on the draft Italian ministerial decree on retro-reflective materials for heavy vehicles and trailers. The UK view is that, because UNECE regulation 48 specifically mentions regulation 104 tape as optional, that reference establishes competence on this subject, taking it away from individual member states. I am not sure how any confusion has arisen: that might be something to do with the comments having been made on the legislation when it was in draft form, rather than after it had come into force.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) still want me to give way?

John McDonnell: It would be nice to have clarity on this point. During the last discussion, the House was quaking in its boots at the risk of UN action and of EC infraction proceedings, and we were told that the Italians were going into the ring with the EU. We now know that in fact, all that they have received is a letter, so no infraction proceedings are taking place and there is no encumberance on the Government's proceeding with the measure.

Stephen Ladyman: Well, infraction proceedings may have yet to start, but that does mean that they are not going to, and perhaps the United Kingdom takes these obligations slightly more seriously than even the Italians do. But I agree with my hon. Friend that the scenario of Hans Blix coming in and inspecting the retro-reflective tape on vehicles on UK roads is probably not entirely likely.

Jeremy Corbyn: This is most helpful and we are obviously making progress. So just to tape it up finally, does my hon. Friend honestly think that if we pass this measure tonight and put the tape on the trucks, any action whatsoever will be taken against us, or anybody else? Would we not be applauded for our foresight in making the roads of Europe safer?

Stephen Ladyman: First, we should ask ourselves what it is we would be able to do tonight. I take it that the Italians are applying their regulations only to Italian-registered vehicles that do not have regulation 48 approval; otherwise, I feel sure that aggrieved owners would have appealed on the ground that the law is being breached. Therein lies the answer to my hon. Friend's question: even if infraction proceedings were not started, any lorry owner who did not want to fit the tape would have legal grounds for objecting to our forcing them to do so. So the sensible thing to do is to use the mechanisms that we agreed to a long time ago in an international treaty for mandating use of this tape. I am prepared to assure the House that I will do everything that I can to ensure that the process is as rapid as possible, that the tape is fitted as quickly as possible, and that people purchasing new trucks fit it voluntarily to as short a time scale as possible. That way, we will achieve the same objectives without having to break the terms of our treaty. My hon. Friends might think that that is not an important matter as it affects this subject. Perhaps so, but there will be times when issues arise that affect this country's economy and competitiveness, and we will want to stand by such international treaties. We would be in a very weak position in doing so if it could be shown that we ignore such treaties when we think that they relate to trivial matters.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Stephen Ladyman: Briefly.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is a difference between a treaty being broken and regulations in this country that merely require UK-registered vehicles to have reflective tape fitted to them in the interest of road safety. Surely we can make some progress here.

Stephen Ladyman: As I said, we will make that progress by mandating the tape's use through the existing mechanisms and by applying, wherever we possibly can, voluntary pressure to establish its use. I know that there is the notion in the House that this tape will provide a major road safety benefit almost overnight, but that is not what the evidence suggests. Vehicles in countries where the tape has had a dramatic effect, such as America, did not have conspicuity aids fitted in the first place, so the comparison was being made between the conspicuity of vehicles fitted with retro-reflective tape and the conspicuity of vehicles with no conspicuity aids. However, in this country we have already mandated the use of a whole series of conspicuity aids on our existing vehicles. Bodies that have researched this issue, such as Loughborough university, have said that it is far from proven that the tape will have the great benefit that people are suggesting.
	Nevertheless, I do accept that we want all vehicles coming into this country, and our own vehicles, to be fitted with retro-reflective tape. However, I believe that the correct way of achieving this is not to infringe the international treaties that we have already agreed to, but to use them and to work as effectively as we can to ensure that this is done to as short a time scale as possible. Because this is such an important Bill, and because we are now in the last-chance saloon and run the risk of losing the entire Bill, I hope that my hon. Friends, at leastand perhaps even Opposition Memberswill agree that it is better to accept my assurance that I will do everything that I can to shorten the time scale for the introduction of this material, and to press the international mechanisms as hard as I can to achieve that introduction as quickly as possible. However, I must insist that we resist the Lords amendments and that we proceed as the Government propose.

Owen Paterson: We are making glacial progress on this extraordinary issue. We are talking about 100-worth of sticky tape going on to trucks, which would have a dramatic impact. There is complete unanimity on the benefit of this measure and the urgency of the need for it. The most recent Department for Transport statistics show that fatalities from road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles increased by 8 per cent. in 2005 to 48615 per cent. of the total number of fatalities from road accidents.
	Research shows that this measure does work. Research by the university of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late. The same study also found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced the number of accidents involving trucks and passenger cars in poor visibility conditions by 95 per cent. According to the European Commission road safety action programme for 2003 to 2010, one of the main causes of road accidents is poor visibility. The Minister has already cited the US statistics, but why is the European Commission determined to bring this measure in eventually? He contradicts himself. US statistics show that rear-impact and side collisions can be reduced by 41 per cent. The Loughborough report, which the Minister also cited, showed that ECE 104 markings would prevent 385 collisions each year, so if the Government hang around until 2010 to introduce this measure, 1,155 preventable collisions could occur.
	There is pretty fair unanimity on this issue. The Minister said that this is a good idea and the other Opposition parties are also in complete agreement. We have strong support, moreover, from Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who offered strong support in Committee.
	This is a phenomenon that I had never heard of before until I dug it out this weekendone that the EU Parliament described as an
	international quasi-legislation/comitology mechanism.
	Let me explain it in simple terms. The UNECE agreement goes back to 20 March 1958, and regulation 104I am trying to keep this briefsets the technical standards. The regulation originated with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, on which sit 57 countries. I am watching the Minister carefully to see whether he is still with me. The regulation was made under the aegis of [Interruption.] Well, the Minister, as I shall explain in a few moments, still does not have a complete grip on this issue. The regulation was amended on 5 October 1995, revised againincluding via amendments that we will discuss in due courseand came into force on 16 October 1995.
	The then transport Minister, Mr. Jamieson, said that the UK became a signatory to UNECE regulation 104 on 15 January 1998, but that the European Commission was investigating the costs and benefits of a mandatory requirement and might make proposals when its research was complete, and that the Department for Transport would await the results of the research before taking a view on whether any such proposal should be supported. As I understand it, that remains the Government's position. We are obliged to allow on to our roads any vehicle that holds an EU type approval certificate, and since the EU has not adopted regulation 104, there is no requirement for the holder of a type certificate to fit retro-reflective marking. The problem seems to arise from UN regulation 48, which concerns implementation, and the fact that the type approvals are not obligatory. With regard to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices, there is a further complication from supplement 7 to the 02 series to regulation 48, which actually introduces retro-reflective markings as a specific device for installation on certain categories of vehicles. I am glad to see that the Minister is still nodding slightly.
	The installation of such markings is, however, optionalthat is, at the manufacturer's discretionand the form of the markings is not specified in detail.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister did not go into the detail that I did; I can assure the House of that. The latest development is that Germany has submitted a proposal to the UNECE working party on lighting and signalling to amend regulation 48 to make it mandatory according to the R104 specification.
	In summary on this extraordinarily complex legislative morass, the UN makes it optional and, because the UN has made it optional, the EU cannot make it mandatory. If the EU has not made it mandatory, we cannot make it mandatory as we will be in breach of EU law, so Germany is now looking to the EU to amend UN regulation 48 to make it mandatory rather than optional.
	I am delighted that the Minister is still with us, because he has just contradicted himself. In Committee, at column 148 on 23 March 2006, he said that our amendment, which had come from the Lords requiring markings to be mandatory, would make the clause redundant and perhaps illegal. However, today he said that it was at best uncertain and he kindly sent me a copy of a letter that he sent to the hon. Member for Stroud. Here we are making glacial progress and, in that letter, the Minister said that the EC letter was
	a likely precursor to infraction proceedings
	but, sadly, he did not include the EC letter. However, he included an absolutely standard report back from the European Commission that is standard procedure when a member state puts forward proposals for implementing legislation in its own country in an area where the EU already has competence. This is not the infraction letter that the Minister hinted it was; it is just a standard letter under what is known as the standstill period.
	What is incriminating for the Minister, however, is the last document that he included with the letter to the hon. Member for Stroud, which, to put it bluntly, is a big let-down. The Minister said:
	The UK does not believe that Italy can mandate the vehicles registered in their national territory are fitted with retro-reflective tape.
	He showed no support to the Commission for what he has just said in the Chamber. What he could have done was enthusiastically support the measure, which many Labour Members, we and the other Opposition parties do, and he could have gone into the technical details of how its implementation could be speeded up. At the moment, we are heading towards 2010 with a measure that all sides agree to be sensible and one that will potentially save lives. However, in the Government's formal response to the European Commission, the Minister is not being helpful at all. He is actually undermining the Italians.
	There has been a lot of talk about the Italians being subject to infraction proceedings, but there is no evidence in the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Stroud that the Commission has taken any action at all against the Italians and nor have the United Nations authorities. I have an e-mail from Juris Dzintars, who is the secretary to the GRB, GRE and GRSG transport divisiontechnology sectionat the United Nations in Geneva. It is very simple. It says:
	In this particular case, the secretariat has not been informed about complaints on the Italian national legislation
	The last word I leave to Anna Borrs of the European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit F/1, automotive industry, who says quite clearly that
	in our view the Italian measures would not infringe the directive.
	This issue is a real tangle; it is absolutely not clear. We have gone into the issue in some detail and it is obvious that the Minister is not clearhe has changed his tune through the Committee stage and modified it very much this evening. We propose sticking to our guns so that he reflectsI do not want to make a punon the issue overnight. He has little time left and we would like this tiny, common-sense measure dealing with 100-worth of sticky tape that can save lives to appear in the Bill. The UN intends that this material should be applied to trucks and it is absolutely intended by the EU that it should apply to all trucks by 2010. The Italians have taken unilateral action despite the Minister waving flags and raising alarums and scarums.

Robert Goodwill: Even if the European Commission decided to take action against the United Kingdom, is it not the case that, by the time that the action got to the court, the EU would have moved anyway and changed the rules?

Owen Paterson: That is probably a very pertinent point, and my hon. Friend speaks with more knowledge than I do, having sat in the European Parliament.
	My point is simple. The measure is intended by UN legislation that goes back several years, it is intended by European legislation, a member state has gone ahead and another member state is pushing the Commission very hard to make the provision mandatory. It is regrettable that we see from the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Stroud that he is not pushing as hard as he says he is tonight. I would like to vote against the Government so that he really thinks overnight and comes up with something better in the Lords in the morning.

David Drew: I apologise for the fact that the issue is back before us once again, but I thank the Minister for sending me the letter that was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on several occasions. I agree with the Minister when he says at the start of the letter's second paragraph that
	there is clearly some confusion.
	Let us hope that we can overcome that confusion.
	To back up what the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, I quote the third paragraph, which is the most pertinent. In it, the Minister says:
	Our stance is that since the old UN-ECE Regulation 48 mentions Regulation 104 tape as 'optional', this reference takes competence on this subject away from individual Member States. Unlike reflective plates on the back of vehicles, which are not mentioned in Regulation 48 and on which we are therefore free to have (and indeed do have) national prescriptions.
	I am interested in what the word optional means there.
	I shall not speak for long, because people know where I am coming from, but I hope that the Minister will go further. What are the UK Government saying about the Italian legislation? If the UK Government are saying, We're all behind you chaps. We think that what you're doing is exactly what we want to do, my case rests and the Government are exactly in the right and morally perfect. However, if the UK is questioning what the Italian Government are doing given that everybodyand I mean everybodyseems to think that the provision is, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, a jolly good idea, we are hardly on the side of the angels. I do not see why we should not be on the side of the angels. Everyone agrees it is a jolly good thing.

Stephen Ladyman: rose

David Drew: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in the hope that he can convince me that my confusion can be put to rest.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall do my best to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are saying that we think that what the Italians have done is understandable. We do not believe that it will have dramatic safety benefits, but it will have some safety benefits and it is something that we want to do. However, we believe that what they have done is not legal or enforceable and they can try to enforce it only on their own vehicles and not on everybody else's. If any of their hauliers object, the Italians cannot force them to act. We do not want to be in that position because we want this stuff to be fixed on all vehiclesnot just our own vehicles, but all foreign vehicles coming into this country. Therefore we believe that the correct way of mandating it is to use the existing legal mechanisms so that we know that it is a legal mechanism that will be enforceable and apply to everyone.

David Drew: I understand what my hon. Friend has just said

Owen Paterson: When?

David Drew: And I hear the question from the Opposition. That is my question, too: when? The notion of 2010, when we are potentially taking an action against the Italians for introducing the measure already, does not really give a great deal of confidence that somebody else could not try to derail things. The private sector might say, Hang on a minute. These people aren't really serious about this. Why should we put this tape on?. We are talking about new vehicles, but we should go much further and do things retrospectively. For 100, we may save lives.
	I am sure that this is not the most important measure in the Bill, and I am the last person to want to try to threaten the Bill. It is vital that we get the Bill through as soon as possible, if not tonight. The sad thing is that a minor measure, which everybody is in favour of, is threatening the Bill for the simple reason that we are questioning not what the Government are doing, but what the EU Commission might do subsequently. Is the Commission likely to take infraction proceedings? As the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, it will take a great deal of time before the matter gets to court. More importantly, if the UK were to come in behind the Italians, one would hope that that would drive the measure forward even more quickly rather than our causing the Italians problems. That is my dilemma. I cannot see any reason why we should not be four-square behind trying to push this measure forwards as quickly as possible, rather than timidly saying that it is up to the EU Commission to get things in place by 2010, which after all is likely to be only three years after the measure comes into some form of negotiated stance. I am willing to be led forward in the hope that we can get this measure put in the appropriate place and get clarity, but at the moment I am still somewhat confused.

Alistair Carmichael: Listening to the Minister, one would think that it was wholly without precedent for the United Kingdom to implement a treaty obligation in advance of the treaty requirement to do so. In fact, as he and probably all Members of the House will realise, that is not the case. A few years ago concerns were expressed about the practice of tethering sows in pig farms. The Conservative Government were eventually persuaded that we should put our pig industry at a significant disadvantage in the interests of animal welfarewell in advance of other pig industries in other parts of the United Kingdom. They were right to do so. They were certainly supported and pressed to do so by the then Labour Opposition. Exactly the same principle applies in this case. All that we want the Government to do in respect of retro-reflective markings is to enforce something that they are going to do in any event.
	The Minister told us that he thought that it was sensible to use the mechanisms that were agreed in treaties. In fact, the sensible thing is to take action on this matter now. As others have pointed out, the Loughborough report indicates that the measure could prevent some 385 collisions each year. That means that between now and 2010 we could prevent 1,155 collisions if we took this step.

Stephen Ladyman: The Loughborough report also said that those figures are based on the experience when vehicles with retro-reflective tape were compared with those without any conspicuity aids at all. It made the point that it was likely that the benefits would not be the same in this country, where vehicles already have conspicuity aids.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. However, it does not detract from the fact that there would be some quantifiable benefit. I do not think that he has ever sought to row away from that. Let me remind the House that his Department commissioned the Loughborough university report. He should take a short pause before he undermines that research.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Minister has admitted that there is uncertainty in this matter and that it is somewhat opaque, the best way forward is to try to make the situation certain by enacting this measure? We shall soon see one of two things. The Commission will either bring infraction proceedingsI do not believe that it willor some ludicrous lorry manufacturer will sue the Government and refuse to comply. I can imagine how much business the manufacturer will gain by doing that. I think that we ought to suck it and see.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I agree, and, yes, I do. That seems an entirely sensible approach. I cannot for one second think that some lorry manufacturer, for such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall cost of a new heavy goods vehicle, would take action against the Government. I do not even think that the Minister believes that. However, if a manufacturer did take action, what would be the commercial cost to that lorry company in terms of lost business and its standing in the industry and the wider community?
	The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said that the Government's position was moving and that it was glacial progress. I fear that he is absolutely right. If this is glacial progress, perhaps for once I could see global warming as a positive process instead of a negative one. But, my goodness, if we think that the Government's progress on this matter is glacial, I have to say that they would be a model of alacrity compared with the EU Commission when it comes to taking infraction proceedings. I cannot for a second believe that we would see anything that would bring us before the European Court of Justice this side of 2010. It would be some substantial time later. If the EU Commission is going to take the measure in any event, why would it take infraction proceedings against us?
	Tonight the Minister will have to answer the question that was posed to him by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew): what is the UK position in relation to dealings with the Commission on this matter? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are not encouraging the EU Commissionor seeking to bring pressure to bear on itto bring infraction proceedings against Italy? That would be a better mark of the Government's good faith in relation to this issue.
	The Minister said that we risk losing the Bill for this issue. I do not want the Bill to be lost and I do not believe that the Minister does, but I cannot believe for one second that he is going to see the Bill lost because of an amendment in relation to something that we are eventually going to do anyway. That is sheer brinksmanship and frankly it is unworthy of the Minister and the manner in which he has conducted proceedings on the Bill so far.

Greg Knight: I am afraid that I do not really accept the point about having to get the Bill through this evening and the concern about losing the Bill. We have lost the Bill once already. It was lost in the last Parliament. It was one of the measures that fell when the general election was called. I am quite happy for us to go through the whole process again and, at the end of the day, have a Bill that is good law. We should not acquiesce in bad or defective law, or law that does not cover every aspect of our concerns about what we think should apply to the road user.

Stephen Ladyman: That is exactly what the Opposition are asking me to doto acquiesce in bad law. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what the law requires us to do. We have to work as fast as we can within that law. The Lords amendment would be illegal.

Greg Knight: I would like to probe that point a little further. The Minister said that he did not want clause 16, or the two Lords amendments to it, in the Bill. His words were that he preferred to rely on the existing legal mechanisms. Is he saying that if we agree to remove clause 16 from the Bill and do not include Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B, and, at a point in the future, the European Union determines that reflective markings should be affixed to vehicles, he will not have to come back to the House to seek permission to implement that? If that is not what the Minister is saying, why does he not accept that clause 16 should remain in the Bill and resist merely Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B, which would impose a time limit?

Stephen Ladyman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am struggling to find new ways of saying what I think I have said at least 40 times before. I believe that the legal position is quite clear. An amendment to UNECE regulation 48 to mandate fitting the tape to trucks seeking regulation 48 certification has been adopted and is expected to come into effect. People have bandied about the date of 2010 because that was our estimate of when the process might be completed, although we think that it might well happen a little earlier. I make a commitment to my hon. Friends and others that I will do everything in my power to bring the date forwardcertainly to 2009 and, if possible, earlier. However, until that amendment is in force, we in the UK must continue to register trucks that are approved under the existing regulation 48, whether or not they are fitted with retro-reflective tape.
	If we were to agree with their lordships, we would be in a position in which we might be making a law that people could just ignore. Even if infraction proceedings were not taken against us and even if someone did not choose to sue us somewhere down the line, people could just ignore the law and we would be in no position to enforce it.

John Gummer: Is not the Minister a victim of better-not-Minister syndrome? Has not some civil servant said to him, Better not do this, Minister. Better leave it as it is? Is it not time that the Minister said, Let's do it, because, in the end, the measure would not do any harm, but it might do a great deal of good.

Stephen Ladyman: I did indeed say that. My officials have gone away to reconsider the matter. They have talked to all their lawyers and all the lawyers in other Government Departments. Every time that they have come back to me, they have said that such a provision would be illegal. When the Lords amendments were passed last Thursday, my officials contacted me, even though I was in a ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. They said that their first instinct was that we would have to concede because we did not want to threaten the Bill. However, the lawyers have been through the matter again and again. We have to resist because the Lords proposal would be illegal.

Owen Paterson: Will the Minister therefore explain why the e-mail from the European Commission also says that
	the Commission services have not received to date any complaints concerning the Italian legislation in question?

Stephen Ladyman: I explained the confusion about that, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to read my comments. However, I shall embellish that and give the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) the assurance that he was seeking. The British Government are not trying to make things difficult for the Italian Government. We have stated that we think that what the Italian Government have done is illegal and unenforceable, but we are not trying to hold them up or to force anyone to begin infraction proceedings against them. We want the Commission to get up a head of steam to make legal what the Italian Government have done because we, like everyone else, want the tape to be mandated, although we do not think that it will have the dramatic safety benefits that others have claimed. The Government's good will was shown by the fact that we commissioned the Loughborough research to find out whether we should support the tape. The answer was that we should, although the tape's effects could not be quantified because the easy experiments were those that could be carried out in circumstances in which there were no other conspicuity aids on vehicles. However, as a consequence of the research, we have tried to get the measure through the European Commission. It will be in place by 2009 or 2010, and I am giving the House an assurance that I will do everything that I can to shorten that time scale.

Greg Knight: Before the Minister finishes his speech, will he deal specifically with my point? If clause 16 were deleted from the Bill, would he need any further authority from the House if the European Commission decided to implement the measure in future? If he would require further authority, why does he not leave clause 16, which relates only to making regulations, in the Bill? There would be no time limit if he were simply to resist Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B.

Stephen Ladyman: As I understand it, we have to reach agreement on the European Commission directive on lighting installation. When that has been achieved, I imagine that secondary legislation will be required. I do not know whether that will be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, although I suspect that it will be the negative procedure. However, I certainly would not need a provision in primary legislationthis Billto enact such secondary legislation. Since there is wide-ranging agreement on the matter, I suspect that that would not even be prayed against, if it were subject to the negative procedure.

David Drew: Given that we know where the Italians stand and where we stand, it would be helpful to know the intention of other European countries. Are they all in favour of the measure, or will they try to delay it?

Stephen Ladyman: I do not think that those countries intend to try to delay the measure. I am not sure that many of them are seized of the need to accelerate the process, either, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will do what I can with my Transport colleagues throughout Europe to make the case for picking up the pace.
	We have another matter to consider today, so it would be a shame if we wasted time on a Division, although that is in the hands of the Opposition. I hope that I have given the House the assurance that, according to all the lawyers I have consulted, the legal position is absolutely clear. I have done my best to ensure that there are no mistakes in that. The best way forward is to use the existing legal process, and I assure the House that I will do everything in my power to get retro-reflective tape mandated as soon as possible. I hope that the House will support the Government's position.

Question put, That this House insists on Commons amendment No. 5, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees to amendments Nos. 5A and 5B proposed by the Lords.
	 The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 183.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B disagreed to.
	 It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on Commons amendment No. 6, to which the Lords have disagreed. [Dr. Ladyman.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill; Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Mr. Frank Roy and Mr. Andrew Slaughter; Dr. Stephen Ladyman be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO.2)

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [ Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 19th June 2006 (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [ Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 Question agreed to.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [ Lords]

Lord message considered.

Clause 46
	  
	Orders and Regulations

Lords amendment: No. 153A.

Parmjit Dhanda: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 237A and 250A.

Parmjit Dhanda: All three amendments respond to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and relate purely to parliamentary procedure. As hon. Members may be aware, the Committee met on 31 October to consider all the amendments made to the Bill during its passage in the Commons. The Committee raised procedural concerns in relation to three amendments. These further amendments fully address those concerns.
	Amendments No. 237A and 153A reflect the advice of the Committee as to the appropriate parliamentary procedure for orders made under paragraph 14 of the new schedule, Appropriate verification, and the new clause, Devolution: alignment, respectively. Both Lords amendments provide that orders are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Lords amendment No. 250A resolves an uncertainty raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and makes it clear that the procedure referred to in sub-paragraphs 2(3)(c) and (d) of the new schedule on transitional provisions will be prescribed in regulations, and that the regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
	I am grateful to the Committee for the time that it has taken to consider the amendments, and I am pleased that we were able to table amendments to respond to the Committee's advice. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.

Maria Miller: At whatever stage we discuss this Bill, it is important that we remember the tragic events that led to the call for fundamental reform of the vetting and barring procedures in this country. The tragic deaths of two young children in Soham led to the Bichard inquiry, which made 31 recommendations. Recommendation 19 resulted in the establishment of a new vetting and barring procedure in the Bill.
	The Bill has been some four years in the making, yet we are still debating its details at the eleventh hour. Unlike most of the Lords amendments under debate today, the amendments are not the result of a disagreement with the other place. Indeed, two of the three are the result of concerns expressed by a Select Committee in the other place about the excessive use of the negative resolution procedure in the Bill. We have expressed that concern at every stage of the Bill, both here and in the other place.
	The third Lords amendment that we are considering today is a legal correction regarding the use of the word prescribe, which now, under devolution, appears to take on different meanings in England and Wales. Perhaps this is another example of two countries being divided by a common language. The Government should certainly have thought about this before they used the word in the Bill.
	The main focus of the Lords amendments is the use of the negative resolution procedure. Our concern about the Government's approach in the Bill was firmly rooted in the Bichard report, which stressed that any new vetting and barring scheme should be as transparent and simple as possible. We feel that the use of vague terms in conjunction with negative resolution procedures is not consistent with that objective, and that it leaves too much important detail in the Bill to debate that would not be open to public scrutiny.
	The Government's excessive use of the negative resolution procedure has been overtly criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. Two of the Lords amendments that we are considering today are a direct response to the concerns that that Committee expressed over the powers that the Government have articulated in the Bill. The Lords amendments underscore the veracity of the argument, which my hon. Friends and I have been making over the past eight months of debate: that more of the detail of the Bill should be agreed through the affirmative resolution procedure. We therefore welcome Lords amendment No. 153A on devolved powers and No. 237A on procedure verification. Both will increase the power of Parliament to scrutinise the Government's proposals in those two important areas of the Bill.
	On balance, we believe that the Bill represents a step in the right direction and an improvement on the present situation. I only wish that the Lords amendments provided for even closer scrutiny of the Government to ensure that they do not use their extensive powers in the Bill unnecessarily to extend the numbers of people required to be monitored. Were they to do so, it could easily unbalance the consensus that has been built up behind the Bill and undermine the support for, and the credibility of, this important piece of legislation.

Annette Brooke: I echo what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) said about the long process leading up to the Bill's introduction, which makes it all the more remarkable that so much redrafting has been necessary. So many amendments were tabled late, so it is not surprising that further changes are required at this even later stage. I am concerned that, where there has been little time for scrutiny, aspects of the Bill will have to be revisited because we will run into problems. I and my party desperately want the Bill to work, but we are concerned about the complexities and the lack of full scrutiny of what is before us today.
	On the amendments, we welcome anything that strengthens the parliamentary process, which has to be a step in the right direction. There has been a tendency this year for more and more aspects of legislation to be left to regulation. Personally, I would prefer to see more provisions built directly into the Bill, but the affirmative resolution is clearly a step in the right direction.
	Amendment No. 250A was, I feel, the result of an omission in the rush to get the Bill through in this Session. It is sad to reflect that there have been such omissions, but having said that, I sincerely hope that the Bill will work and genuinely provide protection for our children and vulnerable people.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 237A and 250A agreed to.

COMPANIES BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Companies Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 6th June, 5th July and 17th October 2006 (Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme), Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2) and Companies Bill [Lords] Programme (No. 3)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 Question agreed to.

Companies Bill [ Lords]

Lords message considered.

Clause 399
	  
	Content of directors' report: business review

Commons amendment: No. 245.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 245A and 245B.

Margaret Hodge: I hope that the debate can be brief because the issues have been debated at length in both Houses over a long period of time. As I explained when the amendment was tabled in this House, the original wording was not about companies providing lists of suppliers or customers or any other people with whom they have or had a contract, but about reporting significant relationships that are likely to have an impact on the performance or value of the business. It is up to the directors to exercise their judgment about what should be incorporated in the business review. They need include information only to the extent necessary for the understanding of the development, performance or position of the company.
	The amendment does not impose a disproportionate burden on business and the costs, which are based on costings that the CBI provided to us when the operating and financial review was being considered, are minimal. However, in the discussions that have taken place in the past couple of weeks, I was persuaded by representatives of the pharmaceutical industry that there was a possibility that the information could be misused by animal rights extremists. Amendments were tabled in another place on that basis. The intention behind the revised amendments is to deal with legitimate concerns around animal rights terrorism.
	The amendment is framed, first, to exempt directors from disclosing information about a person if disclosure would, in their opinion, be seriously prejudicial to the interests of that person. The prejudice might be direct or indirect. Secondly, disclosure must also be contrary to the public interest. That requirement is to ensure that exclusion is not used to cover up wrongdoing on the part of the contractor. For example, if a supplier has supplied dangerous goods and may have been negligent in so doing, it is clearly not in the public interest to conceal his identity.
	We are not trying to exempt the directors from reporting information that would be prejudicial merely to the company. That would create an unjustifiable let-out. It is not necessary to do that to ensure that the interests that we want to protect are covered.
	The business review is an important matter. We have had long, lively debates on it throughout the Bill's passage. Clearly, some have argued for more detailed prescription in the requirements but otherson the Opposition Bencheshave argued for weakening the provisions. We have struck the right balance and I hope that we will agree today that we can put the matter to rest.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Bill is a more comprehensive version of the measure that was first presented to the Lords on 11 January this year. It is in three volumes rather than two and has 1,264 clauses instead of 885. It has broken many records along the way. One must be the 1,029 amendments that were pinged back to the Lords last week. The fact that only a few amendments have been ponged back to the Commons shows that they were mainly uncontentious. Indeed, most were needed to consolidate the Bill with company legislation from 1985, 1988 and 2004.
	We had called for such consolidation for four years. However, the harsh implications of the Government's decision to implement that just before the second Chamber's Report stage have been unfortunate for the legislative process. Despite a valiant and expert effort by the Bill team, we have a good example of how making law on the hoof is clearly unsatisfactory. I sincerely hope that the rush will not come back to haunt the Government.
	Without much pleasure, let me deal with amendments Nos. 245A and 245B. I shall begin by putting the debate in context. The business review was born of the Government's cack-handed approach to the operating and financial review. When the Chancellor scrapped the OFR in November 2005, without consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry or Ministers, let alone any stakeholders, the Government left companies with a bill for the OFR preparations running into millions of pounds.
	The business review was introduced to fulfil the EU directive requirements. After much bungling by the Government, we reached a position that was broadly supported by the Government, business and the Conservative party. On Report, we discussed at length our commitment to encouraging companies to develop their corporate responsibility and we accept that the business review, with its requirements for listed companies to report on environmental and community issues, should play a role in that process.
	However, at the last moment, two days before the final debate of the final parliamentary stage, the Government tabled amendment No. 822, which required directors to provide
	information about persons with whom the company has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the business of the company.
	We were immediately contacted by numerous stakeholders, such as the Association of British Insurers, representing investors, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Quoted Companies Alliance, the CBI, representing large and small companies and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, representing pharmaceutical companies. They all believed that, whatever the issue, such a method of making significant policy change was unacceptable. Let it not be forgotten that the Bill has been eight years in the making and the business review provisions had been agreed after months of significant debate. To throw that aside by tabling the amendment with one and a half day's notice was, to stakeholders, let alone Opposition parties, staggeringly irresponsible.
	On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who is present in the Chamber, voiced the Opposition's concerns about the broad scope of the amendment. She queried what the Government wanted companies to disclose, as the amendment was so vague that it provided little guidance on business reporting obligations. Stakeholders were already attempting to calculate the cost to companies in terms of compliance and related legal advice and guidance. The Government spin machine had stated that the provision would apply to suppliers. Clearly, however, it applies much more widelyto customers and possibly even to bank arrangements or arrangements with Government.
	Following Report, and amid the understandable storm of controversy over the Government's actions, business representatives met the Government to discuss their concerns. We understand that the meeting did not provide much comfort. The Government stated that, at that stage, the amendment would not be changed. Owing to the concern of stakeholders and the vagueness of the wording, and in the light of the Government's intransigence, our noble Friends tabled an amendment to the provision, which introduced a caveat allowing directors to refrain from disclosing information that, in their opinion, would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the company or other persons involved. We were therefore surprised to discover that, having told everyone that there would be no movement on the matter, the Government tabled their own amendment narrowing the scope to allow the omission of information about a person if, in the directors' view, it would be seriously prejudicial to that person and contrary to the public interest.
	We support the position of our noble Friends that the provision should also apply to the company, and that the public interest element should be separated by replacing and with or. The clarification provided by Lord Sainsbury on the Government amendment, and on our counter amendment, was welcome. I repeat, however, that it was all much too late. There has simply not been enough time to review how the provision will work in practice. For instance, can the Minister please advise the House how directors are expected to know what may or may not be in the public interest? Does the provision to omit information about a company apply equally to the holding company or subsidiary of the third-party person with whom the company is contracting?
	We have practical problems with the wording as well as with the lack of consultation and we also have conceptual problems. If we look at the speeches on the matter in the other place, we see that Lord Sainsbury's key point was that the amendment will not require lists of suppliers and customers to be provided. As he put it, the requirement would be for key relationships, not exhaustive lists. There seems to be some belief among non-governmental organisations and certain Members of both Houses, however, that the provision would provide full transparency. That is plainly not the case, and the Minister should comment on that. Anyone who thinks that the clause will lead to supermarkets having to disclose the suppliers of their 30,000 product ranges, as one Member mentioned in this place, is gravely mistaken. The provisions will affect not the large multinational but the small listed company with a smaller field of operation, whose key supplier or customer might have commercial sensitivity, which might mean that it does not want to disclose such contracts. In stock exchange listing rule terms, where such sensitivities exist on circulars, a discussion with the Financial Services Authority can allow the relevant documents not to be disclosed. In the Bill, however, the provision is a blunt instrument with no such flexibility.

Charles Walker: For those of us who are less informed on this matter than my hon. Friend, how can a key relationship be defined for the purpose of the Bill?

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Minister may wish to clarify the matter. From what I can make out, having read Lords  Hansard, Lord Sainsbury seems to have spoken about what a key relationship would not be, rather than what it would be, in relation to those suppliers that companies would have to disclose. Under the Bill, it will be left to the company to determine what a key relationship is. One might have expected the Government to have a view, given that they tabled the proposal in the first place, presumably with some agenda. But the position is unclear, and my hon. Friend has made an important point.
	We are talking about a blunt instrument. The fact that the Government seem to have been unable to recognise that shows how detached they are from the practicalities of business practice. Because the Lords amendments improve slightly on the Government's bad error we will not oppose them, although they do not go nearly far enough.
	Improved corporate governance will never be achieved if businesses are confused by mixed messages about their reporting obligations. With the operating and financial review and now with these last-gasp amendments to the business review, the Government have treated business in this country with contempt. Business looks to Government for stability and careful review of legislation, but in this sorry episode it has received neither.

David Howarth: As the Minister and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) have said, Lords amendment No. 245A has a fairly long history. The original operating and financial review proposal included provisions referring to the supply chain in virtually the same words as those in the Government's amendment. As people in business pointed out, the difficulty with that amendmentalthough we welcomed it in principle as something that we had called forwas that it left businesses in a state of some uncertainty about precisely what they had to reveal.
	The solution proposed by our party in the House of Lords was rather different from that proposed by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but it suffered the same fate. We suggested going further along the line of laying down, via reporting standards, exactly what was expected of business. We believed that that would resolve all the problems identified by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. Regrettably, the Government rejected our suggestion for a reason often repeated during our debates on this matterthat it would lead to a tick-box mentality. Our view was Better a tick-box so that people know what they are supposed to do than a vague and difficult position for businesses to cope with.
	Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, the Government made a welcome concession on the supply chain. Then, because of issues raised by the Ministerincluding the possible emerging of information that would be detrimental to individuals faced with circumstances such as that involving Huntingdon Life Sciencesthey were persuaded to table a further amendment tightening the original arrangement slightly. I am not entirely convinced that that tightening amendment is necessary, for the simple reason that information released by a company is ultimately a matter for the directors: it is for them to decide what is material. We feel, however, that the Lords amendments would bring some comfort to the businesses concerned, and as both the hon. Member for Huntingdon and I raised the issue several times in Committee and on Report, it would be excessively churlish of us to take a different view tonight. Therefore, like the hon. Gentleman, I have no objections to the amendments.

Margaret Hodge: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I will not say much, because we have discussed this issue endlessly. I will merely say that we did not accept the Conservative amendment in the House of Lords because by replacing and with or we would effectively be saying that any bad news about a company should not be reported, and we thought that that was a bridge too far.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is right: the position is entirely based on the judgment of the director, and for that reason it is not prescriptive. The Conservative spokesmen have resisted prescription, in terms of standards, throughout the Bill's passage; for them now to ignore the fact that without prescription the position is bound to be less clear strikes me as a bit churlish, if I may say so.
	We have endlessly discussed corporate social responsibility during the passage of this Bill. Conservative Members say that they espouse it in theory, but every time it comes to the practice, they condemn it. Tonight, they condemn it in such a way that they will not even vote against it, which strikes me as being even more wimpish than they have been in the past. However, in the spirit in which we have reached almost the end of this process, I hope that the House will concur with the Lords amendments.
	 Commons amendment No. 245 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.
	After Clause 635
	 Commons amendment: No. 671.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment.
	The House will remember that the Bill as it was originally introduced in the other place contained a proposal for a general company law reform power. That proposal was dropped as a result of concerns about the breadth of the power, but we explained from the outset that there were a small number of areas where changes were expected to be needed in the short to medium term, including the area of capital maintenance, and where we felt that specific powers to reform the law in future would be appropriate.
	In considering the potential changes to the area of capital maintenance, our view at the time was that three separate but interrelated powers were appropriate, which would have enabled the Secretary of State to amend respectively the rules on share capital, on purchase by a company of its own shares, and on distributions. Powers of that sort were therefore agreed in this House.
	We have now had the benefit of consideration in the other place, and in particular the thorough and important report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It expressed its concerns that those three powers, taken together, would permit the Secretary of State to amend, by regulations, provisions set out in more than 160 clauses of the statute, and that the powers might be seen as excessively wide.
	We have reflected on those concerns and discussed them with others. Our conclusion, which was fully endorsed in the other place, was that there is an important distinction that can be made between the three powers. The parts of the Bill that deal with share capital and with purchase of own shares, while of great importance, seem to us essentially technical in nature. They are of a sort where it might well be appropriate to cover matters in secondary rather than in primary legislation, and where the case for some reform in the medium term remains clear and strong.
	The power which would be removed by amendment No. 671A, however, is slightly different. It covers the area of distributions. The existing rules in this area are based on the second Company Law Directive, and have existed in much the same form since 1981. While there have been criticisms of them, there is as yet no consensus on whether, and if so how, they should be improved.
	In the circumstances, we take the view that it would be going too far, and is not necessary, to take a power to change the basic rules on dividends. If future reform is proposed in this area, it may be that it can be achieved by way of existing powers under the European Communities Act 1972. To the extent that that is not the case, we accept that it would be necessary to come back to Parliament with primary legislation.

Jonathan Djanogly: Amendment No. 671A refers to a clause put into the Bill by the Government in this House, which was thenconfusinglyopposed by the Government in the other place, with the agreement of the Opposition. The right thing has been done in the end. In brief, its purpose was to provide the Secretary of State with new powers to amend the rules on distributions under delegated legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. As Lord Sainsbury said in the other place, there has been much criticism of the rule on distribution following the introduction of the international financial reporting standards and changes need to be made, we believe that delegated legislation is not the appropriate way to amend the rules.
	I join the Minister in commending the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on its speedy work in this area. The Committee indicated strong concern that amendment No. 671, as was, would provide the Secretary of State with extraordinarily wide Henry VIII powers, permitting the Government to amend general principles and detailed issues alike. The subject of distributions has not been properly debated in either House, and we agree with the Committee's recommendations in that instance.
	The Committee also highlighted two other aspectsshare capital maintenance and company purchases of own shareson which it had the same concerns, but in those instances we felt, with the Government, that the subject matter was narrow and the subject clear enough to allow for powers to be given. However, we believe that the complex area of distributions must be revisited by Parliament and I was happy to hear the Minister agree. Primary legislation is needed and we welcome Lord Sainsbury's and the Minister's statements to that effect, although we note that no timetable has been given, so if the Minister could give some indication about thatif only for the start of the consultations that will be needed before legislation can be introducedit would be of help.
	On the basis of what we have heard this evening and the situation we have reached, we shall not be asking for a Division on the amendment.

David Howarth: I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and have only one point to add.
	Since the middle of the last century there has been a tradition that as much of company law as possible should be on the face of the statute. That is not simply for antiquarian reasons; investment decisions are made on the basis of company law, so it should not be too easy to change. Our principal object was to make sure that as much of the law that companies face and use every day should be in the Bill. We accept that that was not entirely possible in the other aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but we welcome the concession.

Margaret Hodge: With the leave of the House, I accept that we all wanted to bring as much as possible within the compass of the Bill. However, we were persuaded by the Committee's arguments.
	I do not know precisely when we shall consult, but there will be consultation with stakeholders at an appropriate time. In the immediate term, we shall probably be busying ourselves with implementing the Bill's many, many clauses and putting in place the necessary regulations and consultations that arise. That will keep us busy for a bit, but we shall keep talking to stakeholders.
	 Question agreed to.

Clause 857
	  
	Appointment of the independent supervisor

Commons amendment: No. 954.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 954A and 957A.

Margaret Hodge: To prevent a ping-pong and to provide the House with an earlier night, we accept the amendments that have ponged and pinged between us and the House of Lords. I ask the House to accept the motion.

Jonathan Djanogly: The issue has come back to the House because the other place rejected Government amendments made in the Commons. We are certainly pleased that the Government are giving way on the issue. I congratulate Baroness Noakes and our noble Friends for persevering on the point.
	The amendments would relate the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the professional oversight board of the Financial Reporting Council. The issue was comprehensively debated by their lordships, so I do not want to rerun the technical ins and outs about whether our amendments will aid that disclosure, as we believeor possibly not, as Lord Sainsbury suggested.
	However, to keep the matter simple and principles-based, as there is mainly agreement, we note that under the combined code audit committees have to review the effectiveness of their audit firm annually. There is growing debate, however, on broadening the base of auditors, so that it encompasses not just the big four, but a wider spectrum of firms. For those reasons and others, it is in everyone's interests that non-executive directors who sit on audit committees should receive the best advice on their auditors that is available.
	Lord Sainsbury noted that, over the summer, the oversight board had consulted on the subject of disclosure by the audit inspection unit, and that it was likely to report on the results soon. Our concern was that the consultation had not been drafted widely enough to cover the subject of the amendments. We appreciate that the amendment is not the end of the matterit will need to be looked into againbut we are pleased that such a review will start from the basis of disclosure.

David Howarth: I, too, welcome the concession. I am glad that, in the first discussion of the freedom of information legislation under the Companies Bill, we have come out in favour of widening that legislation, rather than narrowing itI fear that that might not be the case when the Department for Constitutional Affairs has its way on the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	I am especially glad that the Government have given way and accepted the proposal that the principle of freedom of information should apply to the Professional Oversight Board of the Financial Reporting Council, because Lord Sainsbury's arguments on the subject in the House of Lords were becoming ever more Sir Humphrey-ish. At one stage, he said that the main argument against the proposal was that accountants would become more defensive in the way in which they passed on information to the board, and so would not act in a frank way. That, of course, is an argument against having any freedom of information legislation, and that would be Sir Humphrey's view of that entire field of legislation. There was no evidence to support Lord Sainsbury's view; all that was really meant was that accountants would have to be more accurate, and the board would have to be more accurate in the way in which it came to its judgments.
	It was also argued that board's reports might be exempt from the legislation, and that is true, but that is a matter for the mechanisms of the freedom of information legislation to deal with, and it should not be ruled out, as it was under the Government's original proposal. I am glad to join in the consensus on the very last amendments to a very long Bill.
	 Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That
	1. at the sittings this day and on Tuesday 7th and Wednesday 8th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported;
	2. at the sitting on Wednesday 8th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until a Message from the Lords Commissioners has been received; and
	3. on Wednesday 8th November, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall. [Mr. Heppell.]

Philip Hollobone: The motion is all very well, but for those of us who have secured a debate in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 8 November, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, it is a bitter blow. I would welcome any words from the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons on the subject of finding alternative parliamentary time for the debates listed in the agenda for Wednesday 8 November. Those debates are on extremely important subjects: the future of the United Nations, Government support for Airbus, the impact of grant reductions on the work of British Waterways, cluster munitions andperhaps most importantlythe future of sub-post offices in Northamptonshire.
	My understanding is that the debates were granted with the permission of Mr. Speaker, after considerable thought on his part, and it may be discourteous to the Speaker if the debates suddenly disappear from the parliamentary timetable, without any suggestion being made on when alternative parliamentary time may be found for them.

Nigel Griffiths: May I respond to the debate in the spirit in which it was raised? These are important issues, and it is regrettable that that day will be lost. No discourtesy was intended to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), to Mr. Speaker or to the House. Indeed, agreement was reached through the usual channels. I shall certainly draw the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of the Leader of the House, and I know that Mr. Speaker himself will follow our proceedings. I hope that it will be possible to find an early occasion on which to consider those important matters in Westminster Hall so that hon. Members can be satisfied that they will be able to express their concerns and hold the Government to account. I hope that that assurance is helpful to the hon. Member, and to other hon. Members.
	 Question put and agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put together motions 19 and 20.

Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr Mark Harper be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Simon Burns and Mr Christopher Chope be added.

Procedure

That Mr Jim Cunningham be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mrs Linda Riordan be added. [Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Health Services

David Lidington: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 people from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) about our local health services. I pay tribute to  The Bucks Herald, particularly its editor, Mr. David Summers, and its health correspondent, Mr. Tim Green, for their work on the Dear Patricia campaign.
	The petition, which has my full support, states:
	The petition of the citizens of Bucks and others, declares that expansion plans for any community must be supported by improvements to health services.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to provide reassurances that the health infrastructure can cope and detail what improvements are planned to support Aylesbury Vale's growth plan.
	 To lie upon the Table.

FIREWORK NUISANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Heppell.]

Henry Bellingham: I am delighted to secure this Adjournment debate on the important subject of firework nuisance.
	I have a truly remarkable constituent, Teresa Kulkarni, who has been an indefatigable, resolute, determined and passionate campaigner on firework nuisance for many years. She recently collected 129,397 signatures for a petition that calls for an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks, and for fireworks to be restricted to licensed public displays. On Wednesday afternoon, my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and I accompanied Teresa Kulkarni and representatives of other organisations to No. 10, where we presented the petition in two large suitcasesI do not know what security staff thought we were doing. We had to wait until the Japanese ambassador left No. 10 before politely knocking on the door. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not come answer himself, as he was awaiting the arrival of a Head of State, whom he obviously thought was more important. I understand and sympathise, as our petition consisted of many bundles of paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering will testify that it really was a most impressive performance. We handed that huge petition over to the perplexedand good-humouredstaff at No. 10. Tomorrow night, assuming the Journal Office approves it, I shall present a copy of the petition that Teresa Kulkarni presented to No. 10 to the House. However, tonight I am fortunate in having secured this Adjournment debate, because I am very concerned about firework nuisance. I have every sympathy with the outstanding determination and tenacity of my constituent, Teresa Kulkarni. She is concerned about the impact that firework nuisance is having on hundreds of thousands of people throughout the land.
	We all know that the firework season is getting ever longer, and we all know that fireworks have a very damaging impact on people, structures and animals. I want to discuss those categories. When I describe to Members some of the examples that have been brought to my attention of the level of nuisance that occurs, they will realise that there are problems not only in a few isolated cases, but across the country.
	I received an e-mail this morning from Teresa Kulkarni about last night5 November. She said that she had been to a house in King John avenue in King's Lynn where there is a large rocket-stick wedged in a hole that it made in the guttering. The gentleman who owns the house was out at the time, and the rocket landed in the guttering near to the room where he keeps his computer. That is a frightening example of what can happen during the firework season. Let me give another example: at 4.30 yesterday, a firework rocket landed on the roof of a house in Springwood in my constituency.
	My researcher, Mr. Harry Buxton, joined me recently on an internship. He was travelling on a 211 bus along the King's road. As the bus stopped at a junction, a very large firework exploded in front of the windscreen. The bus driver was forced to take evasive action and swerved right across the junction; he cut across the oncoming part of the highway. Mercifully, there was no car or pedestrian in the way of the bus, but if there had been, there undoubtedly would have been a very unpleasant accident.
	I have some other examples. On 2 November 2006, there was a headline, Two injured in bus firework blast. The report states:
	A man and a young child have been treated in hospital after a firework exploded on a bus.
	When fireworks go off in confined spaces, they can have a devastating impact.
	Members know that we are not allowed to use props in this House, but if I could use a prop, I would hold up a photograph of an ER post box located on Holbeach bank. It is a traditional cast-iron post box that would probably originally have had a GR sign on it, before it had an ER sign. On Sunday 29 October, a hooligan put a powerful banger into that post box, and it was absolutely ripped apart. If anyone had been in the vicinity, they would have been seriously injured, because shrapnel flew across the road. Indeed, all the mail in the post box was seriously damaged, and some of it destroyed.
	I have looked at other headlines, and things get worse. In the past week, there have been several incidents of fireworks being posted through people's letterboxes. I have an example that happened in Redditch. The article states:
	Police are investigating an arson attack on a house after a lit firework was pushed through a letterbox, causing damage estimated to cost 600.
	A newspaper headline from Rushden in Northamptonshire, which is near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), said, Letterbox firework scorches door. The article continued:
	Police are investigating an arson attack after a lit rocket was posted through the letterbox
	of someone's house. A headline dated 29 October, concerning Victoria road, Wellingborough, said, Letterbox firework damages shop.
	The article continued:
	An investigation has begun after an arson attack.
	A headline from a Nuneaton paper, dated 31 October, said, Yobs throw firework into garage of 93-year-old. A 93-year-old man was taken to hospital after yobs threw a firework into his garage, starting a blaze. A headline from 3 November said, Firework thrown into restaurant. Four people were arrested over allegations of a firework incident in a restaurant in Peterborough, which is very near my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering.
	That is bad enoughuntil one considers the individuals who have been badly injured by fireworks. On 3 November, Mr. Robert Mepham, who is 65 and suffers from very bad arthritis, had a firework thrown at him when he was walking near his home in Spinney Hills, Leicester. A firework was also thrown from a car at a postman in Soulton road, Telford, Shropshire; the postman was injured and taken to hospital. Another incident occurred in the west midlands when an individual who was minding his own business walking down the street had a firework thrown at him. It struck him in the face and he was seriously injured. He suffered burns and blistering and blurred vision, and was taken to hospital.
	More than 1,000 people are injured every year as a result of firework nuisance. That is a very serious situation, but there is also a serious impact on animals. I have examined some of the cases involving animalsdefenceless creatures that cannot help themselves and pets that have put great faith in human beings. Pets are very loyal. I own a labrador myself, and I have owned horses and cattle in the past. Indeed, I have owned all sorts of pets, and they have great faith in human beings. They trust us, and we owe it to them to act in a completely responsible way toward them. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who was with us last Wednesday when we handed in the petition to No. 10, is involved with an equitation centre and understands horses. Horses, of all animals, show touching faith in us humans.
	According to a survey of veterinarians, every year 4,500 animals are hurt by fireworks and treated for injury, of which 16 are destroyed by vets. I pay tribute to the campaign of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has highlighted the number of firework incidents involving animals. It has a huge amount of documentation on this issue and sent me an excellent briefing entitled, Keep The Noise Down: reduce that limit from 120 decibels to 97 decibels. It does not want to ban the retail sale of fireworks as my constituent Mrs. Kulkarni does, but it says that there is an urgent need to reduce the noise of fireworks. It takes the view that getting the noise level down by about 23 decibels would have a profound impact, in that it would protect a lot of animals from serious nuisance and disturbance and, in many cases, injury.
	Let us consider some of the animals that have suffered as a result of firework nuisance. I have done some research and looked at the papers over the past few days, and I have some examples here. One headline describes how a Prize dog dies in firework scare. The report continued:
	A sheepdog which represented England in trials is run over and killed after being scared by fireworks. Skerry jumped an 8ft fence.
	A roe deer or red deer stag would have trouble jumping an 8-ft fence, but Skerry managed to do so and ran into a passing car and was killed.
	Another story on 23 October is headlined, Pet cat abused in a firework horror. The article went on:
	A cat was shot dead with an air rifle and then had its abused with a lit firework in West Yorkshire.
	In another case, on 21 October, an incident took place just across the central belt from your part of the world, Mr. Speaker. In Drylaw, Edinburgh, a headline said, Cat scarred after firework attack. The report began:
	A cat is recovering after an attack in which fireworks were taped to its side and set off.
	That is a despicable, appalling and unbelievable attack on an animal.
	I have an example from Kettering in which an article that appeared in the local press said:
	A loud bang went off and dog bolted. That night the police returned his collar.
	The dog has not been seen since. A headline on BBC Online on 25 October said that fireworks were turning dogs to drugs. It said that fireworks are scaring, unsettling and psychologically damaging many dogs and cats so much so that they are now being prescribed drugs to cope with explosions.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham is concerned about horses, and there have been there have been several examples of horses that have bolted after being frightened by fireworks that were let off near an equitation centre, stables or fields where horses were grazing. One report said:
	Fire crews were called to Coltsrock Stud Farm in Pimhole, Bury.
	That was late on Friday night where a horse had bolted. It was not only seriously traumatised, but set on fire and had to be put down.
	In the case of smaller pets, one story tells of how
	Sick yobs tied a baby gerbil to a fireworkthen launched it into the sky.
	That case quite a lot of publicity because it was appalling.
	I have some e-mails that were sent to Teresa Kulkarni, my constituent who is a tireless campaigner on the issue. One says:
	I have a much loved 8 year old Labrador who has suffered from Epilepsy since he was 3 years old.
	Every firework season that dog is in a terribly distressed state. Another e-mail describes how a pet rabbit died from a heart attack on 3 November and another e-mail from someone in the south-west tells how a dog was totally stressed out by the fireworks, bolted and was killed by a car. Another tells how a border collie was frightened by fireworks and was killed, while another describes how a dog went mad as a result of its panic and tried to dig its way under the front door in its attempt to get out of the house. Another example tells of a horse that bolted near Torquay in the west country. It broke the fencing on the stud farm and got on to the road. Only through the grace of God was no accident caused.
	I have given a snapshot of some cases involving animals. They suffer enormously in the firework seasonfar more than many of us realise. They are defenceless pets and farm animals and every year they suffer enormously.
	The firework season goes on for far too long. We all know that the fireworks season starts on 15 October and goes through to 10 November. That is the period when the sale without licence is permitted. That is a long season. A lot of people buy fireworks one year and store them illegally. Often, the season will start way before the clocks go back and will go on way beyond 10 November, which is the last date on which one can buy fireworks from a shop that does not have a licence. We know that the fireworks season goes on and on. In built-up areas, that can be particularly devastating. Driving in to where we live in south London from Norfolk last night, it was like a civil war. The bangs and explosions went on all night.
	We know that there is legislation. To the Government's credit, Bill Tynan's private Member's Bill became the Fireworks Act 2003. The Fireworks Regulations 2004 flowed from that legislation. I am sure that the Minister will say that there is sufficient legislation on the statute book. He will probably make the point that a number of changes have been made. To be fair to the Government, they have brought in a number of significant initiatives, such as making it much more difficult for anyone under 18 to buy fireworks, bringing in a curfew on the use of fireworks between 11 pm and 7 am and imposing a decibel limit. We had the Fireworks (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which flowed from the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997.
	The Government have taken action and it has to be said that existing legislation is quite tough. For example, I gather that the Explosives Act 1875it is not a piece of legislation with which I am familiarmakes it an offence to set off fireworks in the street. That is punishable by a fixed penalty notice attracting an upper tier fine of 80. I guess that there has probably been an inflation index. If 80 was the upper tier fine in 1875, that would be equivalent to about 20,000 now.
	We also have the use of general criminal law, health and safety legislation, and environmental health legislation. Of course, it is illegal to let fireworks off in the street, to let fireworks off in an enclosed space if they are going to create a nuisance, and to fire a rocket or fireworks that are going to end up on a neighbour's property. One could argue that the existing law is reasonably tight.
	My point is simple. I strongly believe that the fireworks season goes on far too long. I put a modest suggestion to the Minister: we should have a shorter fireworks season that lasts a limited number of days either side of 5 November. During that period, it would be legal for shops without a licence to sell fireworks, for people over 18 to buy fireworks and to have a firework display in a safe place. We would have a specific fixed season. When I was helping Teresa Kulkarni with her petition, I said to the media that the season could be 10 days either side of 5 November. Teresa is against that idea because she wants an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks. Perhaps we should have a shorter period. It could be, shall we say, eight days either side of 5 November.
	If we had a specific fireworks season, everyone would know where they stood. Under existing law, one would be able to buy fireworks from shops that were not licensed. The police would be able to enforce the law in a focused way and on a much more clearly enlightened basis, because they would know what was happening and could put more resources in. The problem at the moment, with the long season, is that police resources are stretched. Every time my local police are rung up with a complaint about a fireworks nuisance incident or an incident involving an animal being frightened or injured, or a human being injured, of course they try to investigate, but there are so many incidents. The police want a much shorter season because they would then be able to enforce the law more effectively. Furthermore, the rest of the community would exert peer pressure by saying, We have a limited season during which you can let off fireworks at a private display, but we will have zero tolerance of people who let off fireworks outside that fixed period. Such an approach would be a satisfactory compromise.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a poll carried out by the BBC in the north-west of England showed that 92 per cent. of people believed that there should be a total ban on the sale of fireworks, except those for organised licensed events?

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is right. Several surveys have been carried out recently. For example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, the Kettering  Evening Telegraph organised a similar poll, which showed that the overwhelming majority of people wanted an outright ban. Many surveys and polls have indicated growing public support for such a ban. I think that it has gone up from an average of roughly 55 per cent. 10 years ago to about the 85-plus mark. That indicates that people are fed up with this nuisance and the police's inability to do anything about it. If the Government do not act to introduce tougher legislation, the momentum behind an outright ban will become unstoppable. However, I would not like that to happen because I am not an arch-regulator. I have always believed in a laissez-faire approach towards many things in life.
	Let me give an example of why it would be hypocritical of me to demand an outright ban. On Friday, my seven-year old boy said that he would like to go to a firework display. Unfortunately, we could not rearrange our plans for Saturday so that we could take him to a large display in a village near where we live, and he was very upset. My wife and I decided that we would have our own private display in my mother's garden. The garden is large and no houses around it would be likely to be in range of falling rockets.
	I went along to Tesco in Gaywood, which is in my constituency, and I was impressed by its arrangements. It had a separate firework kiosk manned by a competent member of staff. After looking at me and deciding that I was over 18, she told me that the shop had a rule in place whereby anyone who looked under 21 would be questioned. The shop was thus being extra cautious about the 18-year-old rule. When I explained that I wanted to buy some fireworks, the member of staff gave me the menu. I was able to buy a box of fireworks for 25, although because there was a buy-one-get-one-free offer, I got about 50-worth of fireworks. My wife also bought some rockets from Sainsbury's. My 17-year-old nephew, Joshua Rowley, who was on his half term, was master of ceremonies at the display. We invited one or two local friends with children the same age as my seven-year-old, and our small family firework display brought huge pleasure to those young children.
	I would not have been able to hold such a display if there had been an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks because I would have had to apply for a licence. There are many people in my position. We do not want to be killjoys, but we are nevertheless worried about what is going on. I do not want an outright ban, but I recognise, appreciate and respect the momentum that is building behind such a ban. That is why I congratulate Teresa Kulkarni on her indefatigable campaign, which many people support. If the Government do not bring in tougher legislation along the lines that I have suggested, the momentum will become unstoppable and we will have an outright ban.
	What I am suggesting is a fireworks season. I leave it to the Minister, who is an expert in these matters, to make proposals. My idea of a season stretching 10 days either side of 5 November may be too long or too short, but if we had a specific fireworks season, surely people would know where they stood, the police would be able to enforce it properly, and everyone would realise that it was a satisfactory compromise.
	Outside the season, a licence would be needed. If, for example, the local parish or village wanted to have a fireworks display outside the season, it would apply for a licence. If King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council wanted to put on a fireworks display during the annual King's Lynn festival, it would applyto itself, as it happensto get a licence. If different communities wanted to celebrate community festivals, such as the Chinese new year or Diwali, with a fireworks display, they would apply for a licence. If the Minister's family decided that they wanted to celebrate a family wedding with a few fireworks on the village green or in a safe area, they would have to get a licence to do so outside the season. The application would be straightforwardnot bureaucratic, but simple and easily understood by everyone.
	I shall conclude my remarks, because we want the Minister to have plenty of time to reply, although I imagine that he will not need the whole time to half-past 10, and because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham, for Kettering, for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) also want to say a few words. What I have done tonight is to illustrate to the House that we have a serious problem. Teresa Kulkarni has raised one of the largest ever petitions in this country on fireworks nuisance. She has gathered a staggering number of signatures129,387. She is saying that we have to have an outright ban, and I respect and understand her view. I also respect and understand what the Government have done so far: they picked up Bill Tynan's Bill and they are trying to achieve an all-party consensus on the issue. But the nuisance goes on. People are suffering, animals are suffering, and whole communities are having their lives turned upside down. Action is needed. I have suggested a sensible compromise solution to the Minister and I submit that if the Government do not accept my solution, the momentum behind an outright ban will become unstoppable and the pleasure that my young boy experienced on Saturday night at my mother's home will be gone for ever. I look to the Minister to take action very soon.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) not only on securing tonight's debate but on making such an excellent speech. I also congratulate his constituent, Teresa Kulkarni, who has done tremendous work in collecting such a large number of signatures on, I believe, her second petition on fireworks. The latest petition attracted 129,000 signatures and the previous one more than 90,000. She has put in a great deal of hard work in a good cause.
	I rise to speak in favour of an outright ban on the retail sale of fireworks. I do so not only because I believe in a ban, but because my local newspaper, the Kettering  Evening Telegraph, has called for such a ban. The  Evening Telegraph should be applauded for its work in Northamptonshire on the issue. It conducted a survey of more than 800 local people, 88 per cent. of whom supported a ban on the retail sale of fireworks. Many of the national opinion polls testing political opinion conducted country-wide by MORI and other polling organisations involve about 1,000 respondents, so to get 800 respondents in the area covered by a local newspaper is truly impressive. The fact that such a large proportion are in favour of a ban sends a clear message to the Government that the mood has already turned.
	There are three main issues related to the retail sale of fireworks, but all revolve around fireworks getting into the wrong hands and being used in antisocial behaviour.
	I draw to the Minister's attention a recent case from 24 October highlighted in the  Evening Telegraph. Mr. Aidan Cardew, aged 25, of Mill road, Kettering, was walking home at 2.30 am following a night out with his younger brother when he was hit in the face by a firework that had been fired horizontally from a local park
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Jonathan Shaw.]

Philip Hollobone: Mr. Cardew put up his hands to protect his face, but he suffered such severe burns that he was unable to call the police himself. A Northamptonshire police spokesman said:
	Not only was this a careless and stupid act, it underlines the danger that fireworks in the wrong hands can injure or even kill someone.
	I am sorry to tell the Minister that despite the extra restrictions brought in by the recent fireworks legislation, far too many fireworks are ending up in the wrong hands.
	Even fireworks that end up in responsible hands do much damage, not only disturbing the night's sleep of young children, particularly when fireworks are let off in areas covered by housing estates, but causing alarm, distress and harassment to animals, both domestic pets and wild animals. Animals are killed by fright caused by fireworks. Very young children are often scared witless by the loud bangs in neighbouring properties. Here we are, in 2006, effectively allowing explosives into the hands of people who are not acting responsibly towards their neighbours and causing much alarm, harassment and distress to their neighbours and to animals living nearby.
	My plea to the Minister on behalf of my constituents and the readers of the  Evening Telegraph is please to take on board the message and the growing level of concern. Let us have licensed displays by all means. Let us enjoy fireworks in a responsible way for a limited period of the year, but now is the time to ban the retail sale of fireworks so that we can get a grip on the problem.

Daniel Kawczynski: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing the Adjournment debate. It was a great pleasure to accompany him to No. 10 Downing street to present the petition last week.
	In Shrewsbury we have a famous flower show every year, at the end of which we have a huge firework display, which is licensed and very enjoyable, and many people come to it. My main concern, as my hon. Friends have stated previously, is the constant firework display that we have throughout the year.
	My hon. Friend mentioned my interest in horses. Before my wife and I moved to my constituency, Shrewsbury, we ran an equestrian centre in Herefordshire, near Leominster. We had some 30 horses on livery. I will never forget the evening when some neighbours in the village decided to celebrate their daughter's wedding with a huge firework display in the village. Hon. Members would have laughed at the image of me in my dressing gown running around after 30 horses at 1 o'clock in the morning. It was an extremely frightening moment. The horses were not only my own, but other people's that I was looking after, and I was responsible for them and for safety outside my property if they got loose and went on to the road and into the village.
	I agree with my hon. Friends and urge the Minister to consider some form of licensing so that people, especially in rural areas, are held to account for firework displays, because of the impact that they can have on farms, equestrian farms and various other types of agricultural holding, such as the one that I had.
	I met the Minister during the summer on a different issue, and I find him one of the most professional and reasonable Ministers in this Labour Government. I genuinely think that he is a very good Minister. I sincerely urge him to examine this issue, about which I and many people in my constituency feel very strongly.

Charles Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this important debate. I do not like playing the killjoy, and I hate the word banning. Nevertheless, as we have heard, the fireworks season now continues for six weeksthree weeks before 5 November and three weeks after it. I am sure that, like me, colleagues will have had people coming to their surgeries during the previous week complaining about being kept awake at all hours of the night by firework nuisances, with fireworks sometimes going off until 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning.
	Fireworks used to be a symbol of fun. Yesterday evening, I gathered in Cheshunt park and golf club with tens of thousands of my constituents, and we celebrated a fantastic fireworks display. In the right place, fireworks are absolutely fabulous. On the Rosedale estate, however, they are almost weapons of intimidation. These things are launched at all hours of the day and night, they are thrown into people's gardens and they create a huge amount of nuisance, concern and fear. We also have the spectre of Halloween and trick or treating, which coincides with 5 November at a similar time in the calendar. Several people think that it is amusing to toss fireworks at houses and to intimidate people of all ages, particularly the elderly. I would very much like the fireworks season to be shortened.
	This is a huge problem for the police, who should be provided with more powers to ensure that youngsters who view fireworks as toys and weapons of intimidation feel the full force of the law. I hope that the Minister will talk to colleagues at the Home Office about that. These things are high explosives that kill and maim dozens of people every year; they need to be treated with respect, and those who do not do so should be punished by the law.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for introducing this debate. To be honest, the issue of fireworks is not one that fills my postbag; indeed, 5 November is not always remembered with the same fondness in my constituency as in other parts of the country, because it has a large Catholic area.
	There is a gap between those who use fireworks responsibly and those who use them in the very worst environments to put fear into people and to cause damage. We need to look to the Government to provide something other than the current laissez-faire position. My hon. Friend's proposition of a season for fireworks is probably the best way forward. I do not believe in banning most things, and I get very affronted by that word. As someone who likes to let fireworks off from time to time and make a good bang, I believe that it is important that individuals should be allowed to enjoy them when necessaryfor example, at home with small children. I remember indoor fireworks, which have been banned by the European Union. We should not blanket-ban fireworksthey are an important part of celebrations and are used by different religions and communities at different times of the year. While the idea of a season is correct, we need to ensure that local communities or local authorities have control of it.

Nick Palmer: I apologise for being late for the debate. I support what has been said so far. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the initiative taken by the Co-op and the largest British manufacturer to market less noisy fireworks could be a basis for legislation, given that most of the complaints that I get concern the volume of noise?

Ben Wallace: I am not a scientist, so I would not know how to legislate specifically on the amount of bang people get for their buck.
	The best thing would be to allow local communities to have more control over these issues, and we might have an opportunity in the new Session to tag such a provision on to the local government Bill. The Government have talked about using that measure to devolve power, and this might be an appropriate example. People who live in predominantly Hindu or Catholic communities, for example, might take a different view, or have different times of year for celebrations or for placing controls on them. However, it is important to have those controls over the totally irresponsible youths who have been mentioned.
	Earlier in this Session, we had an opportunity to bring in legislation that would have made offences against members of the emergency services more severe. In my neighbouring constituency of Blackpool, the fire services have just had an horrendous week in which they have been targeted on purpose by irresponsible and reckless individuals. I hoped that the Government would support that legislationI am afraid that they did notbecause it would have placed more responsibility on individuals who throw fireworks at police officers or firefighters responding to calls. It would have meant that those offences would have carried serious penalties, not just a slap on the wrist. That might have brought the responsible use of fireworks into people's consciousness.
	A total ban would not be right, however, and I would oppose any such proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk that we need to introduce the concept of a season, and to ensure that people understand that there is a time and a place for this type of celebration. As long as that is the case, we can all live in harmony, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this timely and topical debate, and I commend his hon. Friends for their support and for taking an interest and taking part in the proceedings tonight. I also offer my commendation to the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Teresa Kulkarni, for her campaign and her collection of 129,000 signatures, which is a considerable number. It is not quite as many as the 4 million signatures presented recently in support of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, but, none the less, that considerable number shows the level of support that she has.
	Over the past week, millions of fireworks have been sold and used in back garden displays, with hundreds of thousands more people attending professionally organised public displays. Contacts that my officials have had with various police forces, fire services and trading standards departments indicate that, so far this year, the bonfire night season has been quiet in relative terms. However, the enjoyment of those millions is threatened, as so often is the case, by the thoughtless, selfish and, on occasion, criminal actions of a minority.
	Fireworks can be fun if they are used in a responsible and sensible manner, but the actions of the minority spoil it for everyone else. It is the minority who continue to let fireworks off in the street, who buy fireworks and give them to under-18s, and who think it funny to let off fireworks in the early hours of the morning, well after the curfew has come into operation, frightening people and animals alike.
	Over the past six years or so, the use and popularity of fireworks has grown. Part of that rise can be attributed to a change in the type of fireworks available to consumers. Large single-ignition multi-shot cakes were virtually unheard of before the millennium. The popularity of those fireworks can be attributed to their safety: they need to be lit only once to provide a display in a box letting off anything from 12 to 200-plus effects. Obviously, this may mean that some garden displays now have more bangs in them, as overall they contain more effects.
	Fireworks do not have to focus on noise, however. Increasing numbers of displays now have a children's display, and the popularity of lower-noise fireworks is increasing. I am told that, on Saturday night, Beckenham Round Table held a hugely popular children's display, which was not made up of large bangs and explosions, before the main display. Such moves are to be encouraged, as they offer a sensible alternative to traditional fireworks. However, they are not everyone's cup of tea because, for many people, much of the enjoyment of fireworks is the noise that they make.
	It is important to state that much of the concern about noise and nuisance caused by fireworks could be avoided if we were all a little more neighbourly and responsible. Simply telling one's immediate neighbours, particularly older neighbours, that one is having a back garden display so that they can take appropriate action is very easy to do. Similarly, if one is aware of neighbours who have pets or if one lives near stables or a farm, simply alerting the owner allows them to take appropriate action. Those simple steps can drastically reduce the concern and potential harm, especially to animals, caused by fireworks.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk referred to the private Member's Bill on fireworks proposed by the former Member for Hamilton, South, which received cross-party and Government support and became the Fireworks Act 2003. That very important statute has helped us control and reduce the problems associated with the noise and nuisance caused by fireworks. The 2003 Act was implemented via the Fireworks Regulations 2004. Although we monitor the effectiveness of those regulations, I think that it is still rather early to consider updating or replacing them, particularly since in 2005, firework manufacturers and importers as well as retailers were required to comply with a number of new more onerous requirements on the licensing and storage arrangements of premises from which explosives, including fireworks, were stored or supplied.
	The Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a number of new controls that have been widely welcomed by enforcement practitioners. For example, the regulations make it an offence for under-18s to possess adult fireworks in a public place and for anyone other than a fireworks, professional to possess category 4 fireworks, and require all-year-round suppliers to be licensed. The regulations also create a curfew on firework use between 11 pm and 7 am on most nights of the year, the exceptions being midnight on November 5 and 1 am on new year's eve, the Chinese new year and Diwali night. They create a maximum noise limit of 120 dB for category 3 fireworks, which is likely to be extended to other fireworks as part of the pyrotechnics directive currently being discussed in Brussels.
	The regulations also require suppliers to display a sign indicating that it is illegal to supply adult fireworks to anyone under the age of 18, and they give local licensing authorities the power to request details of all transactions of fireworks over 50 kg of explosive content, including to whom they were supplied, where the selleres obtained the fireworks and the exact weight of the transaction. Finally, in this long but important list, the regulations require importers of fireworks to notify Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of the intended destination of the fireworks to be imported, to help ensure that fireworks are destined for legal storage and distribution.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister is as courteous as ever in giving way. He has gone through the existing legislation, which I have conceded represents a very big improvement on what went before. Those measures have considerable positive aspects, but does the Minister agree that it is worth looking further into my idea of having a specific firework season? At present, we have provisions relating to non-licensed premises, so why cannot we go just a bit further and have a specific season, which would allow everyone to know exactly where they stood?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and I will respond later to his suggestion for a licensed period for fireworks displays. I should have expressed my appreciation of the kind words expressed by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and also tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) that the Government supported the private Member's Bill proposed by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), to deal with offences against public sector workers. I am not sure whether that was the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I would like the record to be set straight in that regard.
	As I was saying, this is not where my Department's legislative package of consumer protection ends. We also have the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which were amended in 2004. They deal with issues such as the banning of certain fireworks like bangers, air-bombs and fireworks of erratic flight. They create the minimum age for supply at 18 and require all fireworks sold to the general public to be manufactured in compliance with the British standardBS7114.
	Alongside all that, the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005, which I mentioned earlier. They require all premises at which fireworks are stored to be licensed or registered with the HSE or the local authority, depending on their size.
	Obviously, it is easy for me to stand here this evening and mention the list of regulations, but none of that would be any good without clarity in legislation and adequate enforcement. For many years, enforcement of much of the legislation was the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments. Now several agencies are responsible. Offences relating to the possession of fireworks and the curfew are enforced by the police, who can issue fixed penalty notices of up to 80. Trading standards officers still check up on retailers to ensure that supply is to over-18s only and that only fireworks correctly marked BS7114 are sold. In many cases, local authorities also check suppliers to ensure that fireworks are being legally and properly stored. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about the positive experience in his local Tesco.
	Again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. I hope that he will be somewhat reassured that we take fireworks, their safety and use most seriously. The Government believe that the new regulations need time to show that they can work. The House has agreed that new regulations are required because there is public disquiet. I assure hon. Members who have contributed that I take those matters seriously and I am sure that that applies to the rest of the Government. Those regulations will be kept under close review. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have appreciated that there is cause for concern; that is the reason for the new regulations. We need time to ascertain whether they will help. If they do not, I am sure that we shall revert to them in due course.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.